MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by forgotpwd16 | 2025-05-16 21:29:57+00:00
A weakness that goes hand-in-hand with the lack of peer review. There's moderation but shouldn't be considered equivalent to it. Trusting the study means trusting the author or reviewing the paper yourself. If a withdraw happens, either the author comments on why they did it[0] or, similarly to previous, you've to search it yourself.

[0] E.g. arxiv/0812.0848: "This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial definition error of Triebel space".
by sschueller | 2025-05-16 21:30:23+00:00
I don't know why, I read some places that there are issues with drivers for these SFP28 cards in FreeBSD vs Linux which VyOS is based on.

The performance is significantly better for traffic going through the firewall. My previous speeds tests under opnsense where directly on opnsense vs now on a proxy that is routed through the firewall.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-05-16 21:30:34+00:00
The only replacement for locks/mutexes is a lock free data structure. Locks are not what make concurrency possible, they are what makes it data-safe.

You can use platform threads, user-space threads, language-provided "green" threads, goroutines, continuations or whatever you wish for concurrency management, but that's almost orthogonal to data safety.
by alfalfasprout | 2025-05-16 21:32:23+00:00
TBH the people I see parroting the LLM=junior engineer BS are almost always technically incompetent or so disconnected at this point from what's happening on the ground that they wouldn't know either way.

I've been using the codex agent since before this announcement btw along with most of the latest LLMs. I literally work in the AI/ML tooling space. We're entering a dangerous world now where there's super useful technology but people are trying to use it to replace others instead of enhance them. And that's causing the wrong tools to be built.
by Crayda | 2025-05-16 21:32:45+00:00
Hey HN,

We’re a small team of Fortnite UEFN creators who built Crayda — a marketplace where creators can buy, sell, and download high-quality maps, Verse code, and creative assets.

We created Crayda to address the challenge of scattered resources and the lack of a centralized platform for UEFN creators. Our goal is to empower creators by providing the tools and community needed to elevate their projects and earnings.

Key Features: Over 100 free assets available with a $3.99/month membership. A platform for creators to monetize their work by selling assets. A growing community focused on collaboration and support.

Special Offer: To celebrate our launch, we're offering 90% off all paid assets until June 1st, 2025. Use promo code CRA90OFFP at checkout.

We'd love to hear your feedback, suggestions, or any thoughts you have.
by analog31 | 2025-05-16 21:33:06+00:00
Something I'm on the fence about, but just trying to figure out from observation, is whether the AI can decide what is worthwhile. It seems like most of the successes of AI that I've seen are cases where someone is tasked with writing something that's not worth reading.

Granted, that happened before AI. The vast majority of text in my in-box, I never read. I developed heuristics for deciding what to ignore. "Stuff that looks like it was probably generated" will probably be a new heuristic. It's subjective for now. One clue is if it seems more literate than the person who wrote it.

Stuff that's written for school falls into that category. It existed for some reason other than being read, such as the hope that the activity of writing conferred some educational benefit. That was a heuristic too -- a rule of thumb for how to teach, that has been broken by AI.

Sure, AI can be used to teach a job skill, which is writing text that's not worth reading. Who wants to be the one who looks the kids in the eye and explain this to them?

On the other hand, I do use Copilot now, where I would have used Stackoverflow in the past.
by hnuser123456 | 2025-05-16 21:33:26+00:00
This is tempting, because we have a tight grip of control theory. However, there are thousands of things you could measure, and picking one at a time to improve could be catastrophic. Give a severely depressed person a big bump in motivation and nothing else, and it might be their end. We'll need to pick a collection of probably at least 100 measurements of various personality facets, try different therapies and medicines, and see which ones reduce the average error the most for different starting conditions. And do this consistently. Then, maybe we can say things like "given your scenario, treatment X will improve your overall condition the most but may leave these facets suboptimal, and treatment Y will provide a slightly lower overall improvement but does better for these facets you were most concerned about" with actual mathematical confidence.
by suddenexample | 2025-05-16 21:34:00+00:00
Oof. I actually really like the majority (with some notable exceptions) of what Material 3 Expressive does from a pure design perspective, but this article is the worst reflection of that.

"Big button easier to find" (let's think about whether "easy to find send button" is the top priority for an email composition screen, because these folks apparently didn't) and "We can make an existing UI less functional by taking up the entire screen" seem to be the writer's favorite parts of M3E.

It's ironic that they got rid of the tall bottom navigation bar and brought back the short one with less padding (likely after all of Google's own 1P properties decided it wasted too much space), because now it feels like that took that failed philosophy and applied it everywhere else.
by ericghildyal | 2025-05-16 21:34:19+00:00
I used Cline to build a tiny testing helper app and this is exactly what it did!

It made changes in TS/Next.js given just the boiletplate from create-next-app, ran `yarn dev` then opened its mini LLM browser and navigated to localhost to verify everything looked correct.

It found 1 mistake and fixed the issue then ran `yarn dev` again, opened a new browser, navigated to localhost (pointing at the original server it brought up, not the new one at another port) and confirmed the change was correct.

I was very impressed but still laughed at how it somehow backed its way into a flow the worked, but only because Next has hot-reloading.
by palmotea | 2025-05-16 21:35:07+00:00
>> Neoliberal style free trade is also for idiots.

> It has worked pretty well for China

Not exactly: they took advantage of the countries that embraced it, but they never really embraced for themselves.

> are they idiots?

No. The Chinese leadership understands the value of protectionism and other kinds of economic "interference" that are anathema to neoliberal free marketers. That's why free trade has worked "pretty well" for them.

> And for decades, it worked for neoconservatives too. But apparently, it doesn't work for neofascists.

It actually didn't work so well for them, because they were creating the conditions for "neofascists" (and so high on ideology they were blind to what they were doing).
by wcfrobert | 2025-05-16 21:35:37+00:00
I think the article is getting at the fact that in a post-AGI world, human skill is a depreciating asset. This is terrifying because we exchange our physical and mental labor for money. Consider this: why would a company hire me if - with enough GPU and capital - they can copy-and-paste 1,000 of AI agents much smarter to do the work?

With AGI, Knowledge workers will be worth less until they are worthless.

While I'm genuinely excited about the scientific progress AGI will bring (e.g. curing all diseases), I really hope there's a place for me in the post-AGI world. Otherwise, like the potters and bakers who can't compete in the market with cold-hard industrial machines, I'll be selling my python code base on Etsy.

No Set Gauge had an excellent blog post about this. Have a read if you want a dash of existential dread for the weekend: https://www.nosetgauge.com/p/capital-agi-and-human-ambition.
by atonse | 2025-05-16 21:35:43+00:00
I feel for your daughter. I can totally see how tools like this will destroy the junior job market.

But I also wonder (I'm thinking out loud here, so pardon the raw unfiltered thoughts), if being a junior today is unrecognizable.

Like for example, that whatever a "junior" will be now, will have to get better at thinking at a higher level, rather than the minute that we did as juniors (like design patterns and all that stuff).

So maybe the levels of abstraction change?
by rayiner | 2025-05-16 21:35:59+00:00
> I wonder if it will make them adopt a victimization stance and band together around those that promise to end it.

Not only promising to end it, but gaining their trust by giving them facts that collapse the official narrative. The midwestern kid who are growing up hearing "slavery built America"--someone is going to tell him that his ancestors were German indentured servants who cultivated cold, harsh land themselves and whose only involvement with slavery was fighting and dying to end it.
by KaiserPro | 2025-05-16 21:37:02+00:00
> AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs

no it creates shit thats close enough for people who are in a rush and dont care.

ie, you need artwork for shit on temu, boom job done.

You want to make a poster for a bake sale, boom job done.

Need some free music that sounds close enough to be swifty, but not enough to get sued, great.

But as an expression of creativity, most people cant get it to do that.

Its currently slightly more configurable clipart.
by alfalfasprout | 2025-05-16 21:37:06+00:00
> I have now created 5 hyper narrow programs that are used daily by my company to do work. I am not a programmer and my company is not a tech company located in a tech bubble. We are a tiny company that does old school manufacturing.

OK, great.

> That you are trying to use LLMs to create giant sprawling codebase feature packed software packages that define the modern software landscape. What's being missed is that any one user might only utilize 5% of the code base on any given day. Software is written to accommodate every need every user could have in one package. Then the users just use the small slice that accommodates their specific needs.

With all due respect, the fact that you made a few small programs to help with your tasks is wonderful but this last statement alone rather disqualifies your expertise to make an assessment on software engineering in general.

There's a great number of reasons why codebases get large. Complex problems inherently come with complexity and scale in both code and integrations. You can choose to move the complexity around but never fully get rid of it.
by rdtsc | 2025-05-16 21:38:08+00:00
> They were falling over themselves to make a movie with him. Not so much another movie with him. I just happened to watch a video about that this morning

I think one of the main points of the movie is there is no "lead actor". In that regard it's realistic as far as wars go -- there is no "Tom Hanks" character going to rescue a "Private Ryan" with magic plot armor surrounding him. As an aside, that movie was released the same year, so it makes for a great contrast.

Jim Caviezel's character (Witt) sort of became like a main character in the end but he still dies, surrounded and shot. Granted he sacrificed himself, which is notable, as well.
by atmosx | 2025-05-16 21:38:11+00:00
Paper. There’s a project called paperkey that allows you to store GPG keys on A4 paper. You could apply a similar approach to your age encrypted private keys or store them in plain text.

Modern smartphones have excellent OCR (optical character recognition) capabilities, so converting images of printed text back into digital form is now quite easy and reliable.

Personally, I use 1Password, and even they recommend printing out a PDF copy of your passwords and storing it in a secure location - like a physical vault. It’s a practical backup in case something happens and someone needs access to your credentials.
by mananaysiempre | 2025-05-16 21:38:57+00:00
There are, notably, two different if frequently confused “academic we” conventions, distinguished by their clusivity[1]: the inclusive “academic we” in constructions such as “thus we see that ...” refers to the author(s) and the reader (or the lecturer and the listener) collectively and is completely reasonable; the exclusive “academic we” referring only to the single author themselves, is indeed a somewhat stupid version of the “royal we” and is prohibited by some journals (though also required by others).
by austin-cheney | 2025-05-16 21:39:00+00:00
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I am of the belief that AI is currently so primitive and unremarkable that any jobs it does kill almost certainly should not have been there in the first place.

Software is unregulated. That means that unless market pressures demand otherwise businesses are incentivized to treat developers as low quality replaceable commodities, something just a little bit smarter than data entry. That is ripe for a disruptive shakeup but I really don’t think AI will bridge that gap.
by MarkSweep | 2025-05-16 21:39:04+00:00
The thread pool starvation problem in .NET is annoying when you encounter it. Personally I have not bumped into since the .NET framework days.

The thread pool implementation has been tweaked over the years to reduce the impact of this problem. The latest tweak that will be in .NET 10:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/112796

I’m not sure a thread pool implementation can immune to misuse (many tasks that synchronously block on the completion of other tasks in the pool). All you can do is add more threads or try to be smarter about the order tasks are run. I’m not a thread pool expert, so I might have no idea what I’m talking about.
by alfalfasprout | 2025-05-16 21:39:05+00:00
TBH, this website in the last few years has attracted an increasingly non-technical audience. And the field, in general, has attracted a lot of less experienced folks that don't understand the implications of what they're doing. I don't mean that as a diss-- but just a reflection of reality.

Indeed, even codex (and i've been using it prior to this release) is not remotely at the level of even a junior engineer outside of a set of tasks.
by roenxi | 2025-05-16 21:39:14+00:00
> you can’t exchange abstract gallons or other measurements in the abstract only in terms of a measurement of something.

I have an implement for doing exactly that on my desk - a cup. The people who made the cup don't know what I'm going to be filling it with but they have a very good idea of what volume it'll take up. I could go to the pub with friends and ask for a glass of something but I don't mind what. The point of a unit of measurement is it enables abstract handling of quantities. Otherwise we may as well have a unique system of measurement per thing.

And if you want a monetary example, there is barter. I can exchange $50 of work directly for $50 of food, abstracting out the money. That wouldn't be possible if the token itself were the important thing, because it isn't present anywhere in the example.

> Fiat money is a token of exchange backed up by the need for everyone in an economy to pay taxes using those tokens.

Obviously there is more than one type of money if you feel a need to add a prefix to explain what type of money you are discussing. The other types aren't backed up by a need for everyone to pay taxes, money can exist independently of a taxation system. Then it is called non-fiat money. You're focusing on the non-monetary aspects of the system, which is cool and all but missing the forest for the trees.
Show HN: Self-Funded Game with Homemade Engine – Play Online, Steam Coming
by delduca | 2025-05-16 21:40:01+00:00
Hi HN!

I’ve been building a 2D game using a custom engine I wrote from scratch – no Unity, no frameworks. It’s fully self-funded and will be released commercially on Steam.

Engine source code (MIT): http://github.com/willtobyte/carimbo

I’d love feedback on the gameplay, visuals, performance, or anything else. Thanks!
by boroboro4 | 2025-05-16 21:40:32+00:00
I don't mean to invest as to spend more money, rather to spend money better and in a more equal way. While USA spends a lot of money on education I don't think it translates in better education on average. Even if this was beneficial for the society in general.

I am, afraid, that this kind of genome modification will further increase divide in a society and turn social lifts off even more. I.e. it's not gonna be your kid to get "improve" brain genes first, and later your kid wouldn't get a chance to get it ever again for their children.

Just to be clear I'm not against of the progress, this thing is fascinating and really shows how awesome humans are. And I get why you'll get it if possible for your kid. I'm just not sure its benefits for the society mean it's gonna be anyhow affordable for regular people.
by ndegruchy | 2025-05-16 21:40:37+00:00
Thanks for that. I kind of wondered how SQLite was relevant to SCM, but I hadn't really bothered to investigate it. Still, having it in a format that can be browsed and reasoned about is handy. Not that Git is any worse in this regard.

Plus, the only thing I need to do to transfer it to a new disk or network location is to move the `.fossil` file, since everything is nicely self-contained.
by ori_b | 2025-05-16 21:40:59+00:00
As another example: I run https://shithub.us with shell scripts, serving a terabyte or so of data monthly (mostly due to AI crawlers that I can't be arsed to block).

I'm launching between 15 and 3000 processes per request. While Plan 9 is about 10x faster at spawning processes than Linux, it's telling that 3000 C processes launching in a shell is about as fast as one python interpreter.
by overfeed | 2025-05-16 21:41:23+00:00
The reason I prefer the Go ecosystem to Java is cultural, rather than technical. Sure, the JVM is very impressive and the language has been evolving, but the culture around Java seems to encourage needless complexity.

Of all the languages I've had to work with trying to get to know unfamiliar code-bases, it's the Go codebases I've been quickest to grok, and yielded the fewest surprises since as the code I'm looking for is almost always where I expect it to be.
by godelski | 2025-05-16 21:42:08+00:00
>> You especially need to consider typical computer usage involves using more than one application at a time. There's a tragedy of the commons issue

These resources include:

- disk/ssd/long term memory - RAM/System memory - Cache BUT ALSO - Registers - CPU Cores - Busses/Lanes/Bandwith - Locks - Network

My point is that I/O only dominates when you're actually acting efficiently. This is dominating in the case of measuring a single operating program.

You're forgetting that when multiple programs are running that there's a lot more going on. There's a lot more communication going on too. The caches are super tiny and in high competition. To handle interlacing all those instructions. Even a program's niceness can dramatically change total performance. This is especially true when we're talking about unoptimized programs because all those little things that the OS has to manage pile up.

Get out your computer architecture book and do a skim to refresh. Even Knuth's Book (s)[1] discuss much of this because to write good programs you gotta understand the environment they're running in. Otherwise I'd be like trying to build a car but not knowing if you're building it for the city, Antarctica, or even the moon. The environment is critical to the assumptions you can make.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_(Unix)

[1] https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html
by sneak | 2025-05-16 21:42:15+00:00
> This post was written entirely by a human, with no assistance from AI. (Other than spell- and grammar-checking.)

That’s not what “no assistance” means.

I’m not nitpicking, however - I think this is an important point. The very concept of what “done completely by myself” means is shifting.

The LLMs we have today are vastly better than the ones we had before. Soon, they will be even better. The complaint he makes about the intellectual journey being missing might be alleviated by an AI as intellectual sparring partner.

I have a feeling this post basically just aliases to “they can think and act much faster than we can”. Of course it’s not as good, but 60-80% as good, 100x faster, might be net better.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-05-16 21:42:59+00:00
>That's not how it works in the real world. That would be a fraudulent request and I suspect they'd invite legal trouble by impersonating someone else to access a computer system.

Emails are not people. You can impersonate a person, but you can't impersonate an email. If I own a company and I issue the email dick.less@privateequity.com but then have to fire him... using this email address to transfer company assets back to someone who can be responsible for them isn't fraud (for that purpose, at least). How is this not the same issue?
by mritchie712 | 2025-05-16 21:43:39+00:00
the short answer: use a semantic layer.

It's the cleanest way to give the right context and the best place to pull a human in the loop.

A human can validate and create all important metrics (e.g. what does "monthly active users" really mean) then an LLM can use that metric definition whenever asked for MAU.

With a semantic layer, you get the added benefit of writing queries in JSON instead of raw SQL. LLM's are much more consistent at writing a small JSON vs. hundreds of lines of SQL.

We[0] use cube[1] for this. It's the best open source semantic layer, but there's a couple closed source options too.

My last company wrote a post on this in 2021[2]. Looks like the acquirer stopped paying for the blog hosting, but the HN post is still up.

0 - https://www.definite.app/

1 - https://cube.dev/

2 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25930190
by immibis | 2025-05-16 21:44:38+00:00
All money in the bank is created by the bank. When you deposit $100 of physical cash (money) into the bank, the bank creates a $100 bank deposit (also money) and holds $100 of physical cash (money) in its vault. There is now $200 of money.

The bank may buy a government bond with it. In that case there's $100 of physical cash (money) that the government has, a $100 government bond (also money) that the bank has, and a $100 bank deposit (also money) that you have. There is now $300 in total.

Stacking money on top of money is fundamental to the economy. Normally (and enforceably in cryptocurrency systems) the different layers may not be confused, nor may different assets at the same stacking level. But it benefits whoever is creating the higher layers when you confuse them with the lower layers. When people widely bank deposits with base money, this benefits the banks because now the money they print becomes almost as good as base money. When people widely confuse government bonds with base money, this benefits the treasury because now the money they print becomes almost as good as base money. If people were to widely confuse Apple stock with base money, it would benefit Apple and its existing investors.

(Base money doesn't have to be gold by the way. It's anything that's issued without underlying value and widely accepted as a store of value. Fed notes serve as base money just fine. They have about as much actual real-world value as gold bars, which is none.)