MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: Connecting People Through AI-Powered Video Sentiment Matching
by armini | 2025-05-28 02:42:08+00:00
Hi HN,

I’d like to share www.kuky.com, a peer support network that connects people through short, self-recorded videos and matches them using sentiment analysis powered by large language models (LLMs).

We’re building Kuky to help users find others who genuinely understand their emotional journey—not through swiping or likes, but through shared human stories. In this short Loom demo (link above), I walk through how:

Users create a profile by uploading 3 videos: an intro, their mental health journey, and their likes/dislikes

LLMs analyze each video for emotional tone, key themes, and psychological markers

Based on this, Kuky intelligently connects users with similar experiences and emotional alignment

We're passionate about creating a safe, empathetic space for authentic conversation—especially for people dealing with mental health challenges.

For more background, here’s a feature on Kuky in Women Love Tech: https://womenlovetech.com/kuky-the-mental-health-app-were-sw...

Would love your thoughts on the concept, the matching algorithm, and how you’d imagine using something like this.

Thanks, Armin
by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-28 02:42:09+00:00
Beautiful.

This is the project that I think has been needed for a while now.

So much that a Replacement CSM for user implementation has been top of mind to suggest here, awaiting the next time I see a request from programmers looking for a worthwhile project.

Now there's nothing more performant than a request being granted before it's even been made :)
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-05-28 02:46:09+00:00
My favorite "digging through the trash" story was twenty years ago, when I discovered dozens of pounds of medical school studyguides (as a then- pre-med, about to begin studying for the MCAT). Literally $thousands$ in textbooks.

Right as I was loading up the last of the Princeton Review™ bullshit, I found the neighbor who was throwing all this nonsense away (as he had just been accepted to a medical school). He told me, with no hesitation, that I should find a different career if I didn't want to be burnt out all the time.

Sage advice, and I wish I had listened (could have saved years of my life; I dropped out after the first year, myself, disgusted by what I then saw forming within US healthcare / ACA).

----

Decades later, I still have several boxes of 1"x3" index cards, which the future doctor had thrown away several thousand of (mostly blank). So-as to not tempt a future pre-med (into matriculating), I burned everything else.

----

If any pre-med is reading this, please feel free to contact me so I can offer my opinions on better alternatives. You probably won't listen (and there certainly are happy physicians), but if you're attempting this career "to help people" and/or "make money," there're hundreds of easier ways to accomplish both.
by ctchocula | 2025-05-28 02:47:35+00:00
"It's very hard to perceive counterpoint, and there is a limit to how much we can perceive at once. 2 voices is hard and takes practice, 3 voices is even harder, but you can have these flashes where you hear clearly voices playing off one another and its like getting a glimpse into the divine."

I've always wanted to learn how to listen to counterpoint. Anyone have good tips on how to appreciate it and know what it means to perceive counterpoint?
by nchmy | 2025-05-28 02:48:16+00:00
I cant help but think this article was published as a direct response to Cline's (arguably superior) fork, Roo Code, releasing an experimental Codebase Indexer in the past week...

https://docs.roocode.com/features/experimental/codebase-inde...

Augment Code's secret sauce is largely its code indexer, and I find it to be the best coding agent around.
Ask HN: Is anyone using AI conversation partners?
by rickcarlino | 2025-05-28 02:49:58+00:00
I'm obsessed with applying LLMs to language learning software. One thing I am not-so-obsessed with is a wave of conversational chat apps that many startups have begun offering. Having tried them myself, I find them to be quite bland ("Tell me about your day!" ) and often use a speech style that uses direct translation of English phrases into the target language.

I see plenty of potential for LLMs in this space, but the conversation bots I have seen so far are too open-ended and seem half baked.

For users: Is anyone finding these tools helpful?

For the people building them: Are people actually returning to the product?
by bsder | 2025-05-28 02:51:59+00:00
Is the pay better?

https://www.sotxjatc.org/

The pay seems pretty comparable to an Amazon warehouse until you pass at least 3 years of training.

And not everybody gets to wire up air conditioned data centers. A lot of wiring is outside in the hot sun climbing up and down ladders.

If the salaries were significantly better, I should think we'd see a lot of people beating down the doors to be electricians, but we don't ...
by rfarley04 | 2025-05-28 02:52:35+00:00
I don't really understand the need to make "crypto" or "web3" the headline of most (any?) product. The concept that "sells" what you're pushing should be its utility or usefulness, not its infrastructure. Tell HN what the thing you're building does and the community will decide based on those merits. If you're building something to interact with crypto, yea, HN probably doesn't care.

If you're building something cool that uses blockchain in the underlying framework but doesn't require owning/buying/trading crypto, chances of getting attention and traction here is 10x IMO.
by bane | 2025-05-28 02:53:06+00:00
The answer is something that's harder and harder to do these days with all the layers of abstraction -- set a performance target and use arithmetic to arrive at the specifications that you hit and still achieve your performance goal.

It's a bit of work, but I suspect you can arithmetic your way through the problem. Supposing they wanted 60 Hz on the display and a framebuffer you need 196,608 bits/24,576 bytes/24 kbytes [below] on a 1-bit display at 512x384.

The Mac 128k shipped with a Motorola 68k at 7.8336 Mhz giving it 130560 Hz per frame @ 60 fps.

IIR the word length of the 68k is 32bits, so imagining a scenario where the screen was plotted in words, it's something like 20 cycles per fetch [1], you can get about 6528 fetches per frame. At 32-bits a fetch, you need 6144 or so fetches from memory to fill the screen. You need a moment for horizontal refresh so you lose time waiting for that, thus 6528-6144 = (drumroll) 384, the number of horizontal lines on a display.

I'm obviously hitting the wavetops here, and missing lots of details. But my point is that it's calculable with enough information, which is how engineers of yor used to spec things out.

1 - https://wiki.neogeodev.org/index.php?title=68k_instructions_...

below - why bits? The original Mac used 1-bit display, meaning each pixel used 1-bit to set it as either on or off. Because it didn't need 3 subpixels to produce color, the display was tighter and sharper than color displays, and even at the lower resolution appeared somewhat paperlike. The article is correct that the DPI was around 72. Another way to think about it, and what the Mac was targeting was pre-press desktop publishing. Many printing houses could print at around 150-200 lines per inch. Houses with very good equipment could hit 300 or more. Different measures, but the Mac, being positioned as a WYSISWYG tool, did a good job of approximating analog printing equipment of the time. (source: grew up in a family printing business)
by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-28 02:54:01+00:00
I would say "low-cost, high-impact" when that makes more sense.

In this case it's more like low-cost high-delight which does sound a bit better than "cheap thrills" ;)

The owls do seem to convey a sense of communal grumpiness, expressed individually :)

Not unlike HN at tines . . .
by Kon-Peki | 2025-05-28 02:55:22+00:00
Hopefully some of that cash goes to figuring out the proper oil viscosity.

I’ve heard there’s been somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 engine failures so far: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2025/RCRIT-25V274-6343.pdf

PS - don’t give GM too hard a time. Toyota’s new truck/suv engine is failing at a high rate too.
by romforth | 2025-05-28 02:55:57+00:00
By that metric, my implementation of romforth for x86 clocks in at just 12 bytes (see https://github.com/romforth/romforth/x86/forth.s)

The "bug" in the counting used here is that the overall Kolmogorov(?) complexity is not being accounted for because it is shunted elsewhere.

This is true for the other "tinyforth" implementations as well - such as sectorforth and milliforth, because the actual code ends up in the "input part of the Turing tape" if you want to think of it that way.

The right way to count it might be to measure the closure of all your dependencies (in this case, all of the input bytes that are needed plus the bytes in the BIOS that are needed).
by michael-online | 2025-05-28 02:56:41+00:00
Keep building and keep sharing. My personal interest in this domain is to build a small screensaver & graphics toys demo pack to share with friends. Trouble is how to share it these days. Asking someone to download a desktop app might be too 90s for most. A browser extension? A website? I would love to help inspire the wanderlust that computers and the internet provide.
by GMoromisato | 2025-05-28 02:56:44+00:00
I'm rooting for SpaceX because no one else in the world is even attempting to do what they're doing.

Every single time SpaceX has set a goal, there were detractors who claimed they would never accomplish it. And along the way, there were plenty of failures that almost proved the detractors right. But every time--so far at least--SpaceX persevered and eventually succeeded.

When SpaceX decided to re-use their boosters, most people thought they were idiots. They would never be able to do it, and even if they did, it would never make financial sense. Even today, SpaceX is the only company to fly with "flight-proven" boosters, but no one is skeptical anymore. Almost every new launch vehicle, including several Chinese ones, are designed to be re-usable.

When SpaceX decided to build the Falcon Heavy, with 27 first-stage engines, many people thought it would fail. "Remember the N1," they said, which was doomed from the start because they could never get all its engines to work together. But the Falcon Heavy worked and gave us those indelible views of twin boosters landings.

When SpaceX decided to build Starlink, many people thought it was crazy. 5,000 satellites!? Are you crazy? How are you going to manufacture, much less launch that many satellites? Today they have 7,500 working satellites and they are literally launching more twice a week. Starlink has changed the communications satellite industry (there are at least 3 serious competitors).

I remember the first Starship launch, when 5 of its 33 engines failed almost immediately. Skeptics thought the Raptor engine was dead on arrival. Too complicated compared to the proven Merlins and way too unreliable to power Starship. They will never get it to work. And yet, in later flights, all 33 engines worked perfectly all the way to ascent. No one worries about the booster anymore.

When I first heard they were going to catch a returning booster at the launch tower I thought they were mad. I thought that was a long-term plan that might happen sometime in 2030, after they refined the system. But no, they went ahead and caught it on Flight 5. Since then they have caught two other boosters and have reflown one in Flight 9.

People who don't follow the space industry don't yet realize how revolutionary Starship it. It is not just the largest rocket in history; its crazy goal is to be able to launch, land, and then launch again with minimal refurbishment and minimal cost.

If all they wanted to do is launch something to orbit and discard the rocket, SpaceX could have done it on their first flight with a much less ambitious design. The reason it's taking so long (and will continue to take so long) is because their ultimate goal is something no one has come close to achieving: a rocket that can be reused like an airliner.

Musk once quipped that SpaceX is good at turning 'impossible' into 'late'. It's true that they have missed almost every single deadline they have ever set. But it's also true that the things SpaceX has done were once deemed to be impossible.

And that's why I'm rooting for them, no matter how many ships they blow up.
by cerlo_team | 2025-05-28 02:57:33+00:00
Thanks for your kind words and feedback! We're glad to hear Buffer is working well for you — it's a solid tool.

With Cerlo, we’re aiming to differentiate by supporting more social accounts per platform (especially personal ones, not just business profiles), which we know is a limitation in many current tools. Our goal is to serve creators and indie teams who need flexibility and scale without jumping through hoops.

Would love to share a comparison once we're ready — stay tuned!
by 3vidence | 2025-05-28 02:58:24+00:00
I think the whole "AI will replace developers" thing makes sense to people in silos.

I want to do X I can ask AI to help me with X.

But the thing is that as businesses grow and scale one person cannot even keep in their head all the things that have to get done, let alone write it in such a specific way to get an AI to accomplish it.

Even Jr developers (if used correctly) are not just code assistants, they can actually take your mental load away as they grow and then provide projects / ideas that you didn't even originate.

People have mental limits to how much they context they can keep in their head at the same time, AI does not magically solve this fact.

Hire and develop talent, share the load.
by jacobolus | 2025-05-28 02:58:41+00:00
Disclaimer: I chose the colors from first principles and drew the graphics for Xio's version from scratch in Photoshop without any reference (as a volunteer; it was my friends' company), had to sit through depositions about this, etc.

In theory the Tetris Company is incorrect on the merits (the features they claim as "trade dress" are clear aspects of the game rules, not ornamentation, and in Xio's game had quite notable gameplay differences, especially in its multiplayer variants, and significant graphical style differences) and a discerning judge should see through the argument and find against them.

In practice judges often make a snap judgment based on personal prejudices (in this case, that the appearance amounted to "wholesale copying" that "pilfer[s] another's creativity" "without offering any originality or ingenuity of its own" and that such features as the way the pieces move falling from the top of the screen and the dimensions of the game board are "expression" rather than gameplay, and "Xio was also free to design a puzzle game using pieces of different shapes instead of using the same seven pieces used in Tetris." etc.) and ignore the letter and spirit of the law, filling in the decision starting from the conclusion. It has to date been too bothersome for someone with deep pockets to contest this to the appellate level.
by wkat4242 | 2025-05-28 02:59:47+00:00
Me too. I'm also really sensitive to PWM. I tried using 85Hz on my VGA monitor but the higher signal bandwidth and cheap hardware made the video noticeably blurrier. 70 wasn't a great compromise either.

Since TFTs came I was bothered a lot less by it because the lack of flicker (though some 4 bit cheap TN LCDs still had it with some colours)
by Perenti | 2025-05-28 03:00:28+00:00
This reminds me of a "debate" I had with RMS. Back in '98 I was involved with the Gnu Documentation Project, which was about improving the often very out-of-date Gnu documentation.

RMS tends to use semi-colons where others use commas, with _MANY_ subordinate clauses. I suggested he use shorter sentences, and commas. His response:

"But I like semicolons"

That's when I realised that regardless of his bizarre brilliance, there was no way to discuss some issues with him. I still respect him, but he's a shocking writer.
by tgma | 2025-05-28 03:00:34+00:00
I believe the patent issue was by far the dominant friction for adoption in 2000s. On the NIST curve problem, well, maybe FUD, but evidently, they indeed backdoored the elliptic curve-based random number generator, so I would say some distrust is warranted.

Irrespective of the curve issue, ed25519/x25519 is superior and has other nice properties like not catastrophically breaking if you can't generate a unique random "k" for ECDSA as PlayStation discovered the hard way[1].

[1]: https://youtu.be/DUGGJpn2_zY?t=2142
by SmellTheGlove | 2025-05-28 03:00:45+00:00
We got china for our wedding and at some point we just decided to use it regularly like our other dishes. So far it’s been more durable than our crate and barrel stuff that we also got for our wedding, and we put it in the dishwasher too!

That said we also have some china that’s been in my wife’s family for generations and we’re afraid to put that in the dishwasher. That effectively makes it decorative in our case.
by phkahler | 2025-05-28 03:01:26+00:00
>> Probably fud, but it slowed down adoption of eliptic curves.

Not FUD at all. NIST revoked their recommendation to use those curves because of it. The facts are that a "backdoor" exists whether anyone knows what it is or not, and NSA could not explain how those particular numbers were chosen so out of caution we must assume they know the backdoor and not use those curves.
by belmont_sup | 2025-05-28 03:01:51+00:00
To be clear, I myself prefer sound type systems.

But the reality is that teams have started with untyped Python, Ruby, and Javascript, have been productive, and now need to gradually add static types to remain productive.

> Every caller would need to check that the function...

The nice part here is where the gradual part comes in. As you are able to type more of your code, you're able to move where you add your runtime validation, and eventually you'll be able to move all validation to the edges of your system.
by ryao | 2025-05-28 03:02:12+00:00
After presenting their numbers, they mention that CUDA graphs also do much of this, but then say that the launch time is higher for them. It would have been more interesting if they had included comparison numbers.

Without numbers, I am left wondering whether they omitted CUDA graph benchmarks due to a lack of effort, or because they actually did the benchmarks and did not want to admit that their approach was not as much of a performance advance as they portray it to be.
by zer00eyz | 2025-05-28 03:02:18+00:00
The hype: "LLM's will replace all of the coders".

The hate: "LLM's can't do anything without hand holding"

I think both of these takes a disingenuous.

> not productive in the sense of solving real world computing problems.

Solving problems is a pretty vague term.

> The fact that you can hack things that do cool stuff

Lots of times this is how problems actually get solved. I would argue most of the time this is how problems get solved. More so if your working with other peoples software because your not reinventing CUPS, Dashboards, VPN's, Marketing Tools, Mail clients, Chat Clients and so on... I would argue that LOTS of good software is propped up directly and indirectly by this sort of hacking.
by Aziell | 2025-05-28 03:03:23+00:00
This really resonated with me. Seeing those things casually thrown away didn't just feel like waste. It felt like some kind of emotion was being tossed out too.

Sometimes the guilt doesn't come from picking something up. It comes from realizing that we're getting used to throwing things away. Not just stuff, but effort, relationships, and even the part of us that once tried to live with intention.
by mbac32768 | 2025-05-28 03:03:43+00:00
HN is not really that much of a workload. Links with text only comments, each link gets a few hundred comments at most, and commenting on stories ends after they are old enough.

Probably everything that's current fits easily in RAM and the older stories are candidates for serving from a static cache.

I wouldn't say this is an astounding technical achievement so much as demonstrating that simplicity can fall out of good taste and resisting groupthink around "best practices".
by rendaw | 2025-05-28 03:04:00+00:00
The structure is backwards for a colon. The colon precedes the explanation, but the explanation is first here. You'd need something like

> I love semicolons: they bring the drama.

This should be an em-dash or should be parenthesized, adding supplemental information.

> Semicolons bring the drama -- that's why I love them.
by simonw | 2025-05-28 03:04:10+00:00
That's why I said "mostly".

I know they're just statistical models, and that having conversations with them is like having a conversation with a stack of dice.

But if the simulation is good enough to be useful, the fact that they don't genuinely "understand" doesn't really matter to me.

I've had tens of thousands of "conversations" with these things now (I know because I log them all). Whether or not they understand anything they're still providing a ton of value back to me.
by tgma | 2025-05-28 03:04:24+00:00
I believe you are mixing up NIST ECC curves with Dual_EC_DRBG[1] which is a random number generator based on elliptic curves which is widely considered to be backdoored and they revoked its recommendation (there are much better ways to construct an RNG so it was stupid to use in practice for reasons other than backdoor too.)

The P-series curves are still a NIST recommendation and widely deployed in TLS. The B-series fell out of fashion due to practical reasons.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG
by jgerrish | 2025-05-28 03:05:13+00:00
I just got a pair of new shoes to me, previously owned by another. I'm glad they were left behind, different items mean different things to people at different stages of their life.

Like at this stage? I'd love to find a quiet place to run.

But in the meantime, I'm not studying for finals or having a kid. Just buying plant-based mayonnaise like a boring adult and scraping lizard crap out of cages in what some could see as a patronizing metaphorical cholesterol or dendrite decaying act of desperate cleansing against time.

So yeah, if the kids at Duke can buy new shoes and time doesn't matter to them, and there's a high likelihood they'll be reused and it's all by choice? Cool.

Choices are good.
by tempestn | 2025-05-28 03:05:27+00:00
Base-60 for everyday life would be nuts; you really think it would be more convenient to have 60 independent digit symbols?

There's an argument for 12 for sure, but I still think having a power of 2 would be more beneficial than having the extra factors. 8 would give you the same number of integer factors as 10, plus all the benefits of being a power of 2.
by smitty1e | 2025-05-28 03:05:32+00:00
People don't scale. This is graphically implied in Maslow's Hierarchy[1], shown as a pyramid.

The area of the abstractions occurring up the individual's pyramid is dwarfed by the area of the base needs.

The more people you consider, the more the basic needs for e.g. food and shelter dominate.

Finely nuanced abstractions about rights and aesthetics? Don't waste your breath on more than the substet of the population whose heads linger around the top of the pyramid.

Someone else who understood this non-scalability point was Gustav Le Bon[2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Po...
by Klaster_1 | 2025-05-28 03:05:36+00:00
Absolutely, these are my two main use cases:

1. Tracking video games, what my timer was originally for. Each game I'm currently playing gets its own task.

2. Tracking day job activities. My first programming job had mandatory time tracking and I so happened to have a right tool for it. A decade later, job task tracking transformed into a habit, which helps me stay organized a lot. During a work day, I often switch between different activities, like reading emails or working on a Jira ticket. At the end of the day, I mark all of these as done in a couple of key strokes.