MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by chewz | 2025-05-26 08:34:13+00:00
I use this analogy. In the early 90's I had been programming in assembler and sometimes in pure hex codes. I had been very good at that, creating really effective code, tight, using as little resources as possible.

But then resources became cheap and it stoped matter. Yeah, the tight well designed machine code is still some sort of art expression but for practical purpose it makes sense to write a program in higher level language and waste a few MB...
by dgb23 | 2025-05-26 08:34:34+00:00
Some challenges as an autodidact:

- Some people assume you lack theoretical/foundational knowledge.

- Guidance/mentorship is harder to come by.

- You’re likely learning on your free time while working. Quality time is hard to carve out.

- It’s harder to get a sense of where you’re at.

- External validation is much more difficult to get. But you need it when you’re searching for a job.

- You inevitably make a lot of decisions that university students don’t have to make. This can be taxing.

- It requires more discipline, because there isn’t anyone checking in or forcing you to demonstrate your learning.

On the other hand, overcoming these challenges is beneficial, especially if you never really stop learning/studying. You pause from time to time, but you pick up again, because there’s always more to learn.

A big advantage that might not be obvious: You pick up niche subjects, simply because they interest you.

You’re not just learning things that seem useful in your context. It’s actually often the other way around: you learn things that you’re curious about and perhaps a year later you encounter a situation that you can solve a problem because of that.

Curiosity is an interesting mechanism. It’s often a better guide at driving your learning than an analytical approach.
by krisoft | 2025-05-26 08:35:15+00:00
I mean the process either works, or it doesn’t. Meaning it either brings in the expected value with acceptable level of defects or it doesn’t.

From a higher up’s perspective what they do is not that different from vibe coding anyway. They pick a direction, provide a high level plan and then see as things take shape, or don’t. If they are unhappy with the progress they shake things up (reorg, firings, hirings, adjusting the terminology about the end goal, making rousing speeches, etc)

They might realise that they bet on the wrong horse when the whole site goes down and nobody inside the company can explain why. Or when the hackers eat their face and there are too many holes to even say which one they did come through. But these things regularly happen already with the current processes too. So it is more of a difference in degree, not kind.
by _glass | 2025-05-26 08:35:20+00:00
I think it is important to realize, that we need to understand language on our own terms. The logic of LLMs is not unlike alien technology to us. That being said, the minimalist program of Chomsky lead to nowhere, because just like programming, it found edge case after edge case, reducing it further and further, until there was no program anymore that resembled a real theory. But it is wrong to assume that the big progress in linguistics is in vain, the same reason Prolog, Theorem provers, type theory, category theory is in vain, when we have LLMs that can produce everything in C++. We can use the technology of linguistics to ground our knowledge, and in some dark corner of the LLM it might already have integrated this. I think the original divide between the sciences and the humanities might be deeper and more fundamental than we think. We need linguistic as a discipline of the humanities, and maybe huge swaths of Computer Science is just that.
by omnster | 2025-05-26 08:35:28+00:00
In defence of emacs: if I were using emacs, I'd be doing that not because of Neal Stephenson's essay, but rather because of the long-established legacy of the development, and because of the community. I believe that the combination of these two factors is very likely protecting emacs from a sudden enshittification so typical for proprietary software. I'm in the vim church, but for exactly the same reasons.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-05-26 08:35:31+00:00
> OP was saying that it's riskier for OTHERS in traffic - which should be the main thing with reissuing a drivers license

My point is whether it’s others who are dying is irrelevant. We have evidence of increased mortality with age for driving. I’m not seeing similar evidence for roofing. If geriatric roofers were constantly falling to their deaths, we’d see a movement to regulate them, even if they’re falling on flowers and not people.
by Y_Y | 2025-05-26 08:35:34+00:00
In case any of you are distilling your own moonshine, please be aware that at 350 kelvins (77 Celsius) you're likely to be getting methanol[0]. You should have the antivenom (ethyl alcohol, like vodka) on hand just in case.

Home distilling is great fun, and sometimes it's even legal, but please have an accurate thermometer and try not to poison yourself and others unless absolutely necessary.

(These temperate levels are also humidity and altitide/pressure dependent, if your still is in the high Appalachies then just listen to your heart.)

[0] https://diydistilling.com/distillation-temperatures/
by izacus | 2025-05-26 08:35:34+00:00
And most of them aren't. And even those that are - it's much easier to implement the ability to retrieve the last chunk of file than to deal with significant performance degradation of forced file rewrites.

Think about a format that has all those properties and you've used - PDF. PDFs the size of several 100s of MB aren't rare. Now imagine how it works in your world:

* Add a note? Wait for the file to be completely rewritten and burn 100s of MB of your data to sync to iCloud/Drive.

* Fill a form? Same.

* Add an annotation with your Apple Pencil? Yup, same.

Now look at how it works right now:

- Add a text? Fill a form? Add a drawing? A few KB of data is appended and uploaded.

* Sign the document to confirm authenticy? You got it, a few KB of data at the end.

* Determine which data was added after the document was signed and sign it with another cert? A few bytes.

Do you need to stream the PDF? Load the last chunk to detect the dictionary. If you don't want to do that, configure PDF writer to output the dictionary at the start and you still end up with a better solution.
by HenryBemis | 2025-05-26 08:35:35+00:00
The issue is that, (the way I see it happening more and more in the real world): - tests are ran by machines - linters are (being) replaced by machines/SaaS services (so.. machines) - formal verification: yes - SHure, 5 people will review the thousands lines of code written every day, in a variety of languages/systems/stacks/scripts/RPAs/etc. or they will simply check that the machines return "green-a-OK" and ask the release team to push it to production.

The other thing that I have noticed, is that '(misplaced) trust erodes controls'. "hey the code hasn't broke for 6 months, so let's remove ABC and DEF controls", and then boom goes the app (because we used to test integration but 'come on - no need for that).

Now.. this is probably the paranoid (audit/sec) in me, but stuff happens, and history repeats itself.

Also.. Devs are cost center, not a profit center. They are "value enablers" not "value adders". Like everything and everyone else, if something can be replaced with something 'equally effective' and cheaper, it is simply a matter of time.

I feel that companies want to both run for this new gold-rush, while at the same time do it slowly and see if this monster bites (someone else first).
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-26 08:36:49+00:00
I am a Local Guide and Google never prompts me to confirm anything.

Local Guides are ordinary unpaid Google accounts who submit reviews, photos, and other edits as I’ve detailed here. We are sometimes prompted to answer questions, but only with a blank to fill in.

https://support.google.com/maps/answer/7084895?hl=en

Google says "We review all the edits you make."
by mort96 | 2025-05-26 08:38:51+00:00
I don't know how you would do that in practice, since every valid sequence of 4 or 8 bytes is a valid float. Maybe you could exclude some of the more unusual NaN representations but it still leaves you with most byte sequences being floats.

For example, the ASCII string "Morn", stored as the bytes '0b01001101 0b01101111 0b01110010 0b01101110', could be interpreted as the 32-bit float 0b01101110011100100110111101001101, representing the number 1.8757481691240478e+28.

So you couldn't really just have smart "float recognition" built in to an editor as a general feature, you would need some special format which the editor understands which communicates "the following 4 bytes is a single-precision float" or "the following 8-byte is a double-precision float".
by imiric | 2025-05-26 08:39:04+00:00
> The problem is the crypto isn't used as a currency.

False.

> We don't need more securities, sorry.

That's your opinion.

> We already have instant money transfers that everyone uses day-to-day without any hitch.

We do? Please let me know of an instant way to send money to any country on Earth, without exorbitant fees or trusting a single corporation.

> Anonymity for currencies is pretty much bad. We tried that in the past, turns out lots of organized crime.

Ah, yes. Let's abolish cash as well.

It's easy to strawman the case that all cryptocurrencies have no practical value. Groupthink is promoted on forums like this. What takes a bit of maturity and honesty is acknowledging that beyond the negative things cryptocurrencies have been used for, the technology is fulfilling the promise of evolving our financial systems. While you continue to scream and shout that it's a scam, millions of people will continue to benefit from it every day.
by formerly_proven | 2025-05-26 08:39:49+00:00
> I don't know, what's the use-case? Server-server interaction? Then they still need to share a key to validate the JWT. And probably all but the user-facing server doesn't need to be exposed to public internet anyway so why the hoopla adding JWT?

JWTs across servers are typically used with signatures, not in HMAC mode (so no globally shared HMAC keys). Then the issuer simply exposes a JWKS endpoint for downstream consumers (so no additional maintenance to distribute public keys).
by DoingIsLearning | 2025-05-26 08:41:04+00:00
> in the real world today, of things that are not conscious becoming things that are conscious. Gametes.

This kind of goes into the whole research field of António Damásio on consciousness.

We can easily assess if a human is conscious from a medical point of view. But do we have a deterministic test to prove an abstract entity is conscious?
by moktonar | 2025-05-26 08:41:17+00:00
Shouldn't expenses be proportional to population size? If not so, then spend less? Birth rate below replacement doesn't mean population size is not enough to pay for expenses, it just means it will slowly decrease, which btw is good, we are definitely too many. In nature only bi-sexual reproduction is capable of reducing population size when needed, that is a very good indicator that when resources become scarce, only those who can reduce their population size can survive, otherwise we would reproduce by binary fission.
by MrScruff | 2025-05-26 08:44:26+00:00
I have a few friends who've done well out of crypto, and they seem to struggle to follow your advice. I think the success they have with it also gives them a false sense of confidence, like they know what they're doing, rather than bzzzzzt number goes up.

One of them was defrauded of their entire savings, and only discovered at the point where they needed it as a deposit on a house. The person had spent over a year worming their way into their confidence (not just online), and was regarded as a good friend. They managed to convince them over a long period of time that it was safer for them (as a financial advisor) to manage their funds for them. Once the wallet was out of her control, the 'friend' disappeared entirely.
by FinnLobsien | 2025-05-26 08:44:42+00:00
Basically, there's a spectrum which has at its ends two extremes:

1. R&D 2. Maintenance

These aren't about the actual activities performed; R&D could also be something like finding product-market fit at a startup and maintenance could also be working in product/engineering on, say the MS Word team. Just two opposite ways of operating.

In R&D mode, you want to encourage diverging ideas and err on the side of just trying if something works, which typically means you hire small teams of people who think differently, don't anchor too much to the past and avoid excessive layers of management and bureaucracy.

This is because you want to EXPAND the scope of possible actions and outcomes.

In maintenance mode, you want to get things just right every time and minimize the downside. For example, a radical redesign of MS Word would be a horrible idea because the entire world is used to a design they've known for 20 years. Here, you want people who keep things more or less the same. The same is true for internal infrastructure like billing, APIs, etc. This requires people who are less creative, but extremely thorough.

This is because you want to CONTRACT the potential scope of actions and outcomes.
by Zamicol | 2025-05-26 08:44:43+00:00
{ "pay": { "msg": "There are also other options.", "alg": "ES256", "iat": 1748248973, "tmb": "9PcBWntvjAktwfiPp8WxgOyQOwc1h6Lo1UnB_gkWXKk", "typ": "cyphr.me/msg/create" }, "sig": "sHyMrykhsta5etjqH1e5oho0EpEs2FrblQ0DFHQo0aMgKd2V__SQ2Fl2EOSKt8wl65iLmKgIaMVEgCmhtvbUcg" }

Verify: https://cozejson.com

Spec: https://github.com/Cyphrme/Coze
by namaria | 2025-05-26 08:45:18+00:00
What strikes me the most is not even that people are willing to do that, to just fudge their work until everything is green and call it a day.

The thing that gets me is how everyone is attaching subsidized GPU farms to their workflows, organizations and code bases like this is just some regulated utility.

Sooner of later this whole LLM thing will get monetized or die. I know that people are willing to push bellow par work. I didn't know people were ready to put on the leash of some untested new sort of vendor lock-in so willingly and even arguing this is the way. Some may even have the worst of the two worlds and end up on the hook for a new class of sticker shock, pay down and later have these products fail from under them and left out to dry.

Someone will pay for these models, the investors or the users so dependent they'll pay whatever price is charged.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-05-26 08:45:42+00:00
It's worse than that. Not only are temporary bulk phone numbers cheap, phone verification is a profit center for spammers. Because they acquire a bunch of phone numbers for their own use, but each phone number can be used on any service that requires phone verification, so they can then sell phone verification service to other spammers or privacy-conscious individuals who don't want to give out their phone number, or set up a web page to do it that makes money from ads, and use the profits to expand their spamming operation. Not only that, the more services require phone number verification, the more profitable spamming becomes, because each number has an increased return since it can be used to sell an activation for an account on another service.

Meanwhile people who actually want privacy get screwed, because the spammer's account is going to get banned for spamming in less than a month either way, but a normal user would want to keep the same account indefinitely, and then the site demands that they keep access to the same phone number indefinitely. So then the honest users are stuck paying a monthly fee at the retail rate for a separate phone number for each service in order to avoid giving them all the same phone number to correlate with you. Whereas the spammers pay the wholesale rate once and then more than break even.

The anti-spam value of phone number verification is not just zero but actually negative. Its purpose is to harvest phone numbers from honest people for mass surveillance, and anyone requiring it is making the spam problem worse.
by fjfaase | 2025-05-26 08:48:08+00:00
In the Netherlands we have DigiD [1] for accessing all government services including organization that by law are allowed to use the BSN (a national identification number) [2], such as care institution, educational institution and pension fund websites. Financial institutions are also required to register the BSN with each private held account.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identification_number...
Show HN: Bobby, Self-Hosted Discord AI Code Assistant with Claude Code
by Untie4319 | 2025-05-26 08:48:23+00:00
I built Bobby, a Discord bot that integrates Claude Code for codebase analysis while keeping everything completely self-hosted for privacy.

## The Problem

Development teams face constant interruptions: - Stakeholders asking "Does our app support X feature?" - Product managers creating vague tickets that need 3+ refinement cycles - Developers context-switching to answer basic codebase questions - Knowledge silos when team members are unavailable

## The Solution

Bobby acts as an always-available senior developer who knows your entire codebase. Built on Claude Code, it provides instant answers while maintaining complete privacy through self-hosting.

*Core capabilities:* - Analyzes code architecture and explains complex functions - Detects bugs and automatically creates GitHub issues - Answers stakeholder questions without developer interruption - Maintains conversation context via Discord threads - Read-only by design (analysis only, no code modifications)

## Technical Architecture

*Stack:* - Node.js/Bun runtime with Discord.js - Claude Code CLI for AI-powered analysis - GitHub CLI for automatic issue creation - Docker container with automated setup

*Key technical features:* - Streaming responses with real-time JSON parsing - Thread-based session management for context retention - Fire-and-forget concurrency model (each message spawns independent Claude process) - Comprehensive system prompt optimized for Discord constraints - Server whitelisting and permission controls

*One-line deployment:* ```bash docker run -d --name bobby \ -e DISCORD_TOKEN=token \ -e ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=key \ -e GITHUB_REPO=owner/repo \ stewart86/bobby:latest ```

## Privacy-First Design

Unlike SaaS alternatives: - Your code never leaves your infrastructure - You create and control your own Discord bot - Direct API relationship with Anthropic (no middleman) - Isolated Docker environment - Complete audit trail

## Real-World Impact

After months of dogfooding with my team: - 70% reduction in developer interruptions for basic questions - Stakeholders get instant answers instead of waiting for meetings - Product tickets come with proper technical context - Bug detection during normal conversations

*Example workflow:* 1. PM asks: "Can users reset passwords via email?" 2. Bobby analyzes authentication flow and responds in 30 seconds 3. If bugs found, auto-creates GitHub issues with technical details

## Open Source & Production Ready

- *GitHub*: https://github.com/Stewart86/bobby - *Docker Hub*: https://hub.docker.com/r/stewart86/bobby - MIT licensed - Automated Docker publishing via GitHub Actions - Comprehensive documentation and setup guides

The combination of Claude Code's analysis power with Discord's accessibility creates a unique developer experience that closes the gap between AI tooling and team collaboration.

Built for teams who value both AI assistance and data privacy.
by Havoc | 2025-05-26 08:48:33+00:00
Realistically you probably just want to look at the file size on huggingface and add ~2 gigs for OS/Firefox tabs and and a bit for context (depends but lets say 1-2)

The direct parm conversion math tends to be much less reliable than one would expect once quants are involved.

e.g.

7B @ Q8 = 7.1gb [0]

30B @ Q8 = 34.6gb [1]

btw you can also roughly estimate expected output speed too if you know the device memory throughput. Noting that this doesn't work for MoEs

Also recently discovered that in CPU mode llama.cpp does memory mapping. For some models it loads less than a quarter into memory.

https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Llama-2-7B-GGUF/tree/main

https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/LLaMA-30b-GGUF/tree/main
by unscaled | 2025-05-26 08:48:39+00:00
JWT is basically just a signed JSON container format (JWS) with a couple of standard claims and recommended verification procedures. They can be used as a component of an authorization system but they would just be a small component of that. I think the question should be whether JWT is a good fit to play a part in authorization?

If you just need to tack in a bunch of scopes which are configured per clients and are rarely changed, or if you need to track authentication method and time for sensitive operations ("amr" and "auth_time" claims in OIDC), JWT could probably do the job. But for more fine-grained RBAC (or any user-permission-based scheme), JWT is quite problematic.

For one, you will need to revoke the access token every time permissions change. On certain type of systems this could happen quite often (e.g. every time somebody shares a folder with you), and you don't want to constantly log the user out, so all clients would have to have logic to automatically refresh the access token (with a permission-less refresh token) on revocation.

The other option is pure bloat: The moment you go beyond a simple admin flag or a fixed set of roles, you're already on the expressway to a bloated 10kb token. In every system that support a technically unlimited amount of resources and roles, storing all ACLs in the token gets you very large tokens really fast.
by jbverschoor | 2025-05-26 08:48:40+00:00
Saylor (Michael saylor) has saylor academy. It’s a feee resource, and you can get academic credits if you do the exams.

The information is very dense, but goes into more detail dan your average CS degree. Quite low level and tricky questions

Not as accessible. Just a whole bunch of text. Kind of old school, but at least it’s out there
by turtleyacht | 2025-05-26 08:49:08+00:00
Safest is to always cite. Always include references. It's about "show your work." When in doubt, cite.

However, there is a difference between safety and liability. The commit message ought to mention tradeoffs or alternative attempts. It may never happen, but post-mortem folks will want to have the assurance of thoughtfulness.

That's true even if it's your own invention. You would want to note prior work. (If there aren't any or none was searched, you wouldn't have to cite anyway.) Likely though, implementors and adopters are interested in the design and references.

The prompt doesn't necessarily need to be committed to source control, but it does bring up a question: if the prompt can reproduce the (company-owned) code diff, doesn't it need to be independently auditable as well?

Same with local scripts. It's on the company machine, but it's not really as inspectable as on a remote branch. Does one default-share those? Some are truly experimental. That would depend on policy. (A major outage can influence policy.)

It's easier if the prompt is on a company account; then only the link needs to be included, instead of a massive text file.
by lars_francke | 2025-05-26 08:49:37+00:00
> I wish the native backend supported pushing/pulling changes.

0.29.0 is working towards support here. It's only the first step as far as I understand (not following too closely): https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/releases/tag/v0.29.0 git.write-change-id-header

> If you forget to start a new rev before you (or your LLM) touch the repo, it's a little bit of a pain to go back and split the changes into a new rev.

This is my biggest pain point at the moment, yes. I think it could be partially solved by better documentation already. I contributed a bit in the past but haven't had the time to look at this bit yet.