MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by manmal | 2025-05-03 17:03:17+00:00
Your last sentence is a bit of a gut punch tbh - I was meaning to get more familiar with Elixir for side projects, and I’ve made a few small web apps with LiveViews. Absolutely love it, even though I don’t feel I‘ve grasped the language fully yet. But some research shows that most LLMs don’t support Elixir that well.

But since my free time is so extremely limited, it would be really nice to get better LLM and agent support. So I hope the lesser used languages and frameworks get more training love, soon. Lest we all only use Next for hobby projects in the future.
by biophysboy | 2025-05-03 17:03:53+00:00
Yes, exactly. AI will soon be treated like yet another technology, not a sentient alien, and will be used largely to accomplish mundane, well-trodden tasks.

Its analogous to how social media founders dreamily promised global democracy at first; in reality, we got an app to sell a used monitor, complain about a new thing, and look at some cat pictures.
by Wobbles42 | 2025-05-03 17:04:55+00:00
> I think a big part of it is that failures in aviation safety cost lives

This is an interesting point, and it certainly affects the incentives involved and the amount of resources allocated to mitigating the problems.

I do think cyber security incidents with real consequences are likely to become more common going forward (infrastructure etc). We haven't experienced large state actors being malicious in a war time footing (yet).

Will we able to better mitigate attacks given better incentives? I think that is an open question. We will certainly throw more resources at the problem, and we will weight outcomes more heavily when designing processes, but whether we know how to prevent cybersecurity incidents even if we really want to... that I wonder about.
by Shorel | 2025-05-03 17:05:07+00:00
Mathematics is not "equations". Most of mathematics is not related with calculus either.

For anything CRUD, you put the data into a database. The underlying database is relational, or a key->store.

If it's relational, that's one branch of mathematics. If it's another kind of database, it's another branch of mathematics. Mathematics is extensive, and covers more things you can imagine at a glance.

The main difference between writing mathematics and programming, and this applies to any form of programming, is that in mathematics writing a formal proof is amazingly close to: you write the program, and you are also the compiler, and you are the CPU, performing all operations yourself. With programming you only have to write the program.

Source: On one hand I have studied pure mathematics (not the simplified applied mathematics that are taught in engineering, which is mostly equations), on the other hand I have been working as a software developer for over 15 years.
Show HN: 18Bet – An international sportsbook for live betting and bonuses
by renybang | 2025-05-03 17:05:32+00:00
We’ve come across a clean, international betting platform called 18Bet, which focuses on sports betting, live odds, and multilingual support.

It’s a lesser-known alternative that delivers a smooth user experience and generous welcome bonuses. Might be interesting for users outside major regulated zones.
by Towaway69 | 2025-05-03 17:05:37+00:00
For me, NodeRED is far more low-level with switch nodes being the equivalent to a case statement. A change node being equivalent to doing assigments of variables.

n8n is far more high level with google sheet nodes communicating with postgres database nodes. There is far less ability to do manipulate the data being passed around - as many said Zapier-like.

NodeRED is used for home automation and talking to devices that are connected to the network and providing nice dashboards of things happening. Another big use case is IIoT. So it less focussed on integration of SaaS services and more on devices integration and inter-communication between devices.

Plus NodeRED has a great collection[1] of third party nodes that can help in connecting to new devices. Installing nodes is based on npm but is completely automated.

[1] https://flows.nodered.org/search?type=node
by skeeter2020 | 2025-05-03 17:05:42+00:00
RAD & the rise of VB6 was much more measured in promises, and much more concrete in what it delivered. We wrote an awful lot of VB^ and Foxpro code, much of it quite valuable almost all of it terrible quality - but that didn't matter as much.

Vibe coding promises the world, and behold fails to deliver.
by AaronAPU | 2025-05-03 17:07:50+00:00
Every time I see a post about something built with vibe coding, it reminds me of myself at age 12 making a really basic screensaver in GWBASIC.

All the excitement I felt because it was new to me, but it was really just a very basic toy not a real piece of software.

Meanwhile there were seasoned pros who could probably do amazing things even with GWBASIC. But that was more in spite of it than because of it.
by sargstuff | 2025-05-03 17:09:24+00:00
Progress. aka max out what can reasonably do [as 'unique'/distinct copyrightable research] at given level with 'current' AI tools.

?snarky? Google OpenAI ChatGPT-4[0] has been retired. Moving on from nibbles [4 bits] to bigger bytes [8bits], perhaps utf-1024 paragraphs[1] at some point. aka stich/weave together AI code fragments -- non-mathematical taylor series grouped by utf~2.7 example via picture simulation of 'code blocks' [2][3]

------

[0] : https://www.techradar.com/computing/artificial-intelligence/...

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_...

[2] : https://www.pixel-stitch.net/

[3] : https://www.turbomosaic.com/pictures-of-pictures.html#:~:tex...
by firefoxd | 2025-05-03 17:09:50+00:00
I worked in automated customer support, and I agree with you. By default, we automated 40% of all requests. It becomes harder after that, but not because the problems the next 40% face are any different, but because they are unnecessarily complex.

A customer who wants to track the status of their order will tell you a story about how their niece is visiting from Vermont and they wanted to surprise her for her 16th birthday. It's hard because her parents don't get along as they used to after the divorce, but they are hoping that this will at the very least put a smile on her face.

The AI will classify the message as order tracking correctly, and provide all the tracking info and timeline. But because of the quick response, the customer will write back to say they'd rather talk to a human and ask for a phone number they can call.

The remaining 20% can't be resolved by neither human nor robot.
by bcantrill | 2025-05-03 17:11:45+00:00
Absolutely. The reality is that SAFEs are often used to price a company, even though the pricing conundrum is exactly what they are trying to solve! If you want the reveal on SAFEs, raise them uncapped (with a discount, of course!) and watch how many people tell you that they can't possibly do that. (Not everyone, though -- deeply appreciate those investors who are willing to invest on uncapped discounted SAFEs!)
by hajile | 2025-05-03 17:12:05+00:00
This is the learning to fish problem. If you understand git well, a solution isn't very hard (eg, rev-parse each branch and compare to the rev-parse of the current branch and deleting if they match). If you don't understand git well, you shouldn't be turning into a script-kiddy pasting in whatever the AI spits out and hoping that it works.
by themanmaran | 2025-05-03 17:12:19+00:00
Yea the founders also have majority common stock. So there's not a normal scenario where the founders and other investors get paid out in an exit, but the angels don't.

The bigger fear is a non-exit scenario, where the company becomes profitable, possibly pays out large investors to maintain the relationship, and founders just take massive salaries. So no liquidation event that benefits angel investors.
by mrweasel | 2025-05-03 17:12:21+00:00
> It's hard to see how helping pigs stay healthy could have a negative impact on human health

I think that view underscores the differences in approach and beliefs in the US and Europe (not that both views aren't represented on both sides of the Atlantic, just distributed differently). The Europeans frequently have the view: Prove to us that this is not dangerous. Otherwise we prefer not taking the chance that you might be wrong. The US version in our eyes is frequently: "You can't prove it's not safe".

In this case you could risk introducing even worse diseases, who have previous been kept in check by the competition from the viruses you're now eliminating.
by amos-burton | 2025-05-03 17:12:26+00:00
good news, IF that is true, i am not qualified to say. The real difficulty is about fighting the trail of progress, now, for 8 billions people, with some of them armed with nuclear weapons, to name only one example. the society much increased its ability to deliver to the market, awesome. we still need to account that all the changes we are planning also induces their own pollution on top of the basal metabolism.

There is no amount of tech solutionnism that can help at dealing with the problem at stake if we dont act according to our claims, as a specie, that s the real deal if you are honest. as a small reminder, many people dont even have clean water to drink....
by daveliepmann | 2025-05-03 17:12:38+00:00
>I suspect this is the real reason Clojure was created, I bet Rich was just really bored.

I notice too that a noticeable number of people pick up Clojure because it's new and shiny. As a longtime Clojurian I find that attitude can be disappointing to run into, like when you realize a growing friendship will die because they're not serious about living in your city.

I don't claim to know the man but the reasons Rich wanted Clojure are quite concrete, well documented, and rational. Java programs of the time were a particularly heinous form of OOP; we should not be surprised that a clever programmer would grow a preference for a dynamic, functional-first style. He found lisp superior (in interactivity, expressiveness, yadda yadda) and wanted to use it professionally.

To work in lisp required delivering something indistinguishable from a JAR (or other mainstream proglang executable). He had the realization that without immutable data structures baked into the language he'd always be subject to Other People's State.

If you think about these points logically they lead pretty straightforwardly to creating a (pragmatically) functional, dynamic, hosted lisp.
by rpaddock | 2025-05-03 17:12:39+00:00
I see "Ear Canal Pressure Sensor" is listed on the website.

I know that NASA was doing some research on using the tympanic membrane to measure intercranial pressure. Ask around, please, and find out if anyone has considered that application. We really do need a better way to detect cerebrospinal leak (CSF Leaks). A CSF Leak was a significant contribution to my late wife's death.
by seba_dos1 | 2025-05-03 17:13:08+00:00
> You point out the "is a" relationship, not the "is" relationship, they are different.

Well, what you reacted to was, let me copy'n'paste, "Math is a language". It was you who insisted that "is" in this sentence maps to "equals" relation, so thanks for agreeing that you were wrong.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-03 17:13:18+00:00
>there’s a huge amount of calculated work and effort that can put yourself in a position for luck to occur.

>I truly realised that if you create what YOU want to create, the jobs and opportunities that will creatively satisfy you the most will come out of exuding that energy into the world.

This is all about the commercial application of art, but I find it can work for science as well.
by Tallain | 2025-05-03 17:13:51+00:00
This is pretty much how I play GTA V. I have a Self Radio playlist for a specific vibe. Hop in a random car and cruise around the city, get distracted by some event, cause a little mayhem and escape if I'm in the mood, and keep cruising. Like the Truck Simulator games, it's a good way to go for a drive without actually needing to go for a drive (so less exhausting, wasteful, and dangerous).
by seadan83 | 2025-05-03 17:14:05+00:00
> I understand you have strong opinions, I just don't understand why.

As someone that is "on the other side of the fence", and getting flamed for it, maybe I can shed some light since I have the other perspective as well. IMO, The reason for not seeing eye to eye is (for example) akin to saying "word problems are math". (Thinking of a grade school word problems for common reference). Yes, they are readily mapped to mathematical models that can solve the word problem & perhaps almost indistinguishably so. Though no - word problems are not math. Word problems are a series of phrases and words. That's where the talking past each other comes in... Different interpretations of "word problems are math", or "code is math". It's seemingly not clear whether we are talking about logical 'implies', 'element of', or 'equals'.

Which goes to "We can perfectly describe the CRUD operations with set theory.", we all agree there. That is not readily conveyed though when writing things like "code is math".
by cptskippy | 2025-05-03 17:14:42+00:00
I remember once a month the the ABBL(Atlanta Bulletin Board List) would come out and my father would download and print it at work because we didn't have a printer. He'd come home with a reem of green striped tractor feed paper and I would scour over it transferring annotations from the previous list and making note of new boards to try.
by ks2048 | 2025-05-03 17:15:03+00:00
At least one link/benchmark I saw said the ANE can be 7x faster than GPU (Metal / MPS),

https://discuss.pytorch.org/t/apple-neural-engine-ane-instea...

It seems intuitive that if they design hardware very specifically for these applications (beyond just fast matmuls on a GPU), they could squeeze out more performance.
by zahlman | 2025-05-03 17:15:14+00:00
So, this is a fork of pip that adds the described checks to the UI? Looks like it also doesn't vendor dependencies like pip does, which is probably fine - you'll have to use something like (like pip) to bootstrap it, but this doesn't have the special-case requirements that motivate that design choice for pip (like being bootstrapped via standard library `ensurepip`).
by jmyeet | 2025-05-03 17:15:46+00:00
> Private equity aims for 3-5 year returns

I honestly don't understand how private equity makes money at all. The playbook is:

1. Borrow a ton of money and buy a company on an LBO

2. Load up the company with debt, often complicated, exploding debt, to repay the original loan. Possibly sell off assets like real estate to pay off the original loan; and

3. Here's the kicker: sell off the company for a profit.

But we've seen time and time again that PE is a death sentence. Toys R Us, Red Lobster, numerous others. The company seemingly always explodes under the debt after the original snake oil salesman have cashed out. But my point is: who keeps falling for this and buying a PE hollowed out husk?
by bmink | 2025-05-03 17:16:39+00:00
Tbh it’s not just nostalgia (at least for me). That machine (and related machines) had such a unique combination of limitations and possibilities that 35 years on, I still find a lot of inspiration in code and optimizations that were/are being written for C64 and are directly or indirectly applicable to programming today.

8 bit CPU with 16 bit address space, a simple assembly language, most peripherals accessible by modifying bytes in memory, coupled with a desire to show off and one up each other produced an absolute treasure trove of programming tricks and techniques. Coders regularly produce(d) results that on paper were not possible on C64.
by techpineapple | 2025-05-03 17:16:42+00:00
I have a question, maybe a theory.

AI seems to serve two purposes.

1: AI is a super intelligent employee that applies its observation of truth to problem solving.

2: AI is a politically vulnerable personality whose value is in its ability to adapt to the norms and truths of its users.

This is probably a very complicated question, but are the two goals above sort of sociotechnically compatible in a practical sense, in our world?

Like technically you can imagine two completely separate detached AI systems that are designed to separately solve on or the two problems.

But when you intermingle the AI systems with the context of the business environment it operates in, and that intermingled with the VC environment they operate in, and that intermingled with the social environment it operates in, and that intermingled with the political environment it operates in. Is that possible to truly distinguish between these two goals?
by LVB | 2025-05-03 17:16:52+00:00
I love seeing this. I used these tools during my computer-formative years. Now, at 51 with a whole computer career under my belt, I've been thinking a lot about those days. Nostalgia will bias things positively, of course, but I'm look back fondly on how, at least for personal projects, I just did stuff.

At that time, I had no background in "real" CS or best practices. I didn't have the internet advising this way or that, and my only resource was a book or two from B. Dalton. I didn't even really think about good or bad code... merely: does it do the thing I want it to. I just made my programs however I wanted and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Lately, I've wanted to get back to that mode, at least a bit. It is really tough to set aside all of the rigor and analysis I'm accustomed to and just bang something out. Ugly, buggy, happy path only, but at least they exist. Things like Cursor et al. have come along at the right time...
by frou_dh | 2025-05-03 17:17:18+00:00
> I suspect this is the real reason Clojure was created, I bet Rich was just really bored.

Well he spelled out the motivations in numerous early presentations so I don't think he'd take kindly to the implication they were BS.

I remember a funny quote along the lines of, he felt the concurrent software he'd already written in C++ and Java had required "He-Man" levels of perspiration to actually get correct.
by codeddesign | 2025-05-03 17:17:22+00:00
It drives me crazy when people make argument like this without pointing to the actual legislation.

https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB1375/2025

After reading the bill, I don’t see the argument.

The bill is around expanding the current laws involving directly selling or distributing media to minors where not only the business but also the employee would be held responsible.
by SilasX | 2025-05-03 17:17:38+00:00
Disagreeing with me doesn't mean my criticism is attacking a strawman. That's not what the term means. The websites are, in fact, permitting you to view them, while insisting you not learn anything from the content.

That's not fundamentally different from when employers "explicitly refuse" you learning from your job with them to use at the next one. Sure, they certainly want that, but the law doesn't recognize it as a valid constraint (except for e.g. trade secrets and proprietary knowledge).
by Wobbles42 | 2025-05-03 17:17:56+00:00
I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may or may not be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but at least they ARE doing the right thing. That decision was made by a set of humans, and likely at least some of them are well meaning.

In any case the corporate entity as a whole is not conscious. A strictly behavioralist approach is appropriate there. If it does the good thing it gets the carrot, if it does the bad thing it gets the stick. We can't win it's heart and mind because it has neither, so we have to settle for keeping it's behavior in line.
by _heimdall | 2025-05-03 17:18:31+00:00
I don't think we can so easily pin it on capitalism. Capitalism brings incentives that drive work hours and expectations up for sure, but that's not the only thing in play.

Workers are often looking to make more money, take more responsibility, or build some kind of name or reputation for themselves. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that goal also incentivizes to work harder and longer.

There's no one size fits all description for workers, everyone's different. The same is true for the whole system though, it doesn't roll up to any one cause.
by alexeichemenda | 2025-05-03 17:19:10+00:00
>Best approach would be to make very few investments

Top VCs—who see the best deals and run deep diligence—still only have a 1–5% hit rate. As an angel, you don’t have that level of access or time. Even if you get strong referrals, you’d need to be 10–15x better than elite VCs to pick winners in a small portfolio. Unless you’re investing in at least 10 companies, it’s statistically a losing game.

My experience: I invested in ~200 companies early stage (with some winners like HuggingFace, Checkr & more).
by lsy | 2025-05-03 17:19:17+00:00
I feel like people in the comments are misunderstanding the findings in the article. It’s not that people save time with AI and then turn that time to novel tasks; it’s that perceived savings from using AI are nullified by new work which is created by the usage of AI: verification of outputs, prompt crafting, cheat detection, debugging, whatever.

This seems observationally true in the tech industry, where the world’s best programmers and technologists are tied up fiddling with transformers and datasets and evals so that the world’s worst programmers can slap together temperature converters and insecure twitter clones, and meanwhile the quality of the consumer software that people actually use is in a nosedive.
by elon17x | 2025-05-03 17:19:27+00:00
I read the MapReduce paper recently and wanted to try out the internal working by building it from scratch (at least a minimal version). Hope it helps someone trying to reproduce the same paper in future

You can read more about it in newsletter: https://buildx.substack.com/p/lets-build-mapreduce-from-scra...

Github repo: https://github.com/venkat1017/mapreduce-go/tree/main/mapredu...
by hatefulmoron | 2025-05-03 17:20:51+00:00
> there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours.

But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work.

For there to be a "better option" (as in, you're paid money for not working more hours) what are you actually being paid to do?

For all the thoughts that come to mind when I say "work 20 hours a week instead of 40" -- that's where the individual's preference comes in. I work more hours because I want the money. Nobody pays me to not work.
by chillingeffect | 2025-05-03 17:20:56+00:00
I took that to mean it takes less pico cpu power to reach the same cycle-accuracy.

Esp since there arent graphics routines in the c64 to speak of! There are no plot, screen clear, line, etc. Every program rolls its own.

As a joke a real freak could polyfill/hijack e.g $ffd2 output single char to cursor position in native pico code instead of 6502 to accel basic programs. That could be weird and phone to speed up all thise routines... but at that point just clock it all faster :)
by stavros | 2025-05-03 17:21:23+00:00
Could we not just... not confine the pigs in spaces about as big as their bodies?

Kurzgesagt had a very interesting video[0] about the fact that it wasn't really that much more expensive to make sure we ate torture-free meat.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-03 17:23:50+00:00
> But you do have that option, right?

Not really. Lots of kinds of work don’t hire part timers in any volume period. There are very limited jobs where the only tradeoff if you want to work fewer hours is a reduction in compensation proportional to the reduction in hours worked, or even just a reduction in compensation even if disproportionate to the reduction in hours worked.