MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by pst | 2025-05-30 22:41:38+00:00
I'm working on an application and use Fiber, Templ and Datastar to keep my frontend in Go, like my backend. I'm overall quite happy with this approach.

But Datastar tries to do both, AlpineJS stuff like show/hide dropdow options, as well as HTMX stuff like talk to backend and merge/replace parts of the DOM.

I came across TemplUI a few times while working on this app so far. But always felt the Vanilla JS plus HTMX approach of TemplUI conflicts with Datastar. Too much overlap in different components doing the same stuff for my taste. While at the same time, I spent way too much time converting Tailwind UI components into Tempo. Time I could spend better.

Datastar is quite on the experimental/unstable side of things. And its concept of signals doesn't quite work for my Kubernetes style API resources. So maybe I need to revisit this decision at some point.

What I really like about Datastar and what made me choose it in the first place is how easy it makes using server sent events.

So yeah, exciting times. Still some rough edges I would say. But for me personally I already prefer hypermedia over the predominant React frontends approach.
by weikju | 2025-05-30 22:43:19+00:00
> I can think of one - there's a bunch of newsletters/substacks I subscribe to that occasionally contain stuff I really care about somewhere in them, but are too long and dense to quickly skim them. An AI summary of most important points and topics would help me decide whether to invest time and read it in full, or archive it and forget.

At this point in time though an LLM summary would not be guaranteed to contain all the points or to focus on the stuff you care about, so it wouldn't be reliable anyway.
by carlosjobim | 2025-05-30 22:43:29+00:00
I think that's mostly myth, and a very very deeply ingrained myth. That's why probably hundreds of people already feel the rage boiling up inside of them right now after reading my first sentence.

But it is myth. It has always been in the interest of the rulers and the old to try to imprint on the serfs and on the young how much better they have it.

Many of us, maybe even most of us, would be able to have fulfilling lives in a different age. Of course, it depends on what you value in life. But the proof is in the pudding, humanity is rapidly being extinguished in industrial society right now all over the world.
by WaltPurvis | 2025-05-30 22:44:03+00:00
I plugged those two quotes from Amodei into ChatGPT along with this prompt: "Pretend you are highly skeptical about the potential of AI, both in general and in its potential for replacing human workers the way Amodei predicts. Write a quick 800-word takedown of his predictions."

I won't paste in the result here, since everyone here is capable of running this experiment themselves, but trust me when I say ChatGPT produced (in mere seconds, of course) an article every bit as substantive and well-written as the cited article. FWIW.
by vector_spaces | 2025-05-30 22:44:11+00:00
I'll add to this that the "abstraction" component of this description is key and the use-case for a gen_server is far more broad than what you might expect in say a networking or web context.

You would use them for instance when you need to group behavioral units with a defined interface, even if you don't require any explicit networking.

This is a bit reductive and wrong in some ways but think of gen_server modules and instances as "sort of" like classes/objects. You "send messages/requests" instead of "calling methods," but the spirit is essentially the same -- it's a way of modeling the world with code
by hn_acc1 | 2025-05-30 22:44:19+00:00
Just curious what area you work in? Python or some kind of web service / Jscript? I'm sure the LLMs are reasonably good for that - or for updating .csv files (you mention spreadsheets).

I write code to drive hardware, in an unusual programming style. The company pays for Augment (which is now based on o4, which is supposed to be really good?!?). It's great at me typing: print_debug( at which point it often guesses right as to which local variables or parameters I want to debug - but not always. And it can often get the loop iteration part correct if I need to, for example, loop through a vector. The couple of times I asked it to write a unit test? Sure, it got a the basic function call / lambda setup correct, but the test itself was useless. And a bunch of times, it brings back code I was experimenting with 3 months ago and never kept / committed, just because I'm at the same spot in the same file..

I do believe that some people are having reasonable outcomes, but it's not "out of the box" - and it's faster for me to write the code I need to write than to try 25 different prompt variations.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-05-30 22:44:24+00:00
just because it doesn't do what you tell it to doesn't mean it's not intelligent. i would say doing something that gets you where you want when it knows? it can't do exactly what you asked for (because architecurally it's impossible) could be a sign of pretty intelligent sideways thinking!!? dare i say it displays a level of self awareness that i would not have expected.
by pedalpete | 2025-05-30 22:44:59+00:00
TLDR - you are probably blinded to your biggest irritations, and they just might be ingrained into society to such an extent that we think nothing can be done about them. Just turning on the light to see them and asking the right question is just the 1st step.

I think the real challenge is that what bothers most people are actually minor irritations. We don't notice the big thing shouting at us that it's a problem.

This was my experience which lead me into neurotech/sleeptech.

I'm a lifelong insomniac. I was going through sleep labs as a kid. I had done all the CBTi (though I don't think it was called that in the 80s), sleep hygiene, etc. etc. I'm quite healthy, just crap sleeper.

I was almost 50 when at 3am I thought to myself "I don't care if I sleep, I just don't want to be tired anymore".

I thought that was an interesting thought. Poor sleep had been ruining my life for the most part of 5 decades.

So I started looking into the latest in sleep research (I had worked in healthtech at Australia's science and technology research agency), and it all seemed very much the same as what I'd heard before. I started tracking everything, trying to figure out if I could build some sort of algorithm that picked up a signal of what I was doing when I had good sleep vs bad.

This was completely the wrong approach. My irritation wasn't truly that I couldn't sleep enough. That was part of it, but the bigger irritation was that I was always tired. Even though I asked the right question, the global mentality was "you need to sleep longer".

That was until I discovered research in slow-wave enhancement, which increases the synchronous firing of neurons which are the defining marker of deep sleep. This is tapping into the restorative function of sleep, not focusing on sleep time.

So I think that finding the irritation that may be hidden from you is step 1. But beyond that, who else has had the same irritation, and what have they done about it. Why did their solutions not work. Then, why do you think you can do it better?

If you're curious about what we're building, you can check out https://affectablesleep.com
by EA-3167 | 2025-05-30 22:45:07+00:00
This is one of those issues that does deserve attention, but around which enormously dishonest rhetoric seems to thrive. The statistics are often presented in lurid and misleading fashion as well. Pew did a bit about this as part of the 'community survey' back in 2015-2016 and my first reaction is, "We have much bigger fish to fry than this" and "I am not surprised by these demographics".

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/01/child-mar...

It's good to get legislation to close these loopholes, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we take the "300,000 children" statistic at face value. The other thing to point out is that this 2025, so marriage is hardly a prerequisite to sex, and in fact a lot of these marriage licenses are granted when one someone turns up pregnant.

Personally I think this is a pretty clear-cut case of papering over a much bigger issue: parts of this country have really poor educational and financial outcomes for whole communities of people. As we've seen around the world, when you raise the standard of education and wealth, within a generation or two people change their habits around marriage, reproduction, etc.

But of course that's a lot harder to fix than just passing a bill.

tl;dr Instead of further regulating people's lives as the OP suggested, there are other more effective levers you can push. Changing the legal age of marriage to 21 will stop marriages under than age, but not relationships, pregnancies, and dropping out of education/work.
by ctoth | 2025-05-30 22:45:09+00:00
> Once this occurs, many software engineers could perhaps transition into adjacent positions that rely on similar expertise but are significantly harder to automate, such as software engineering management, product management, or executive leadership within software companies.

> In these roles, their responsibilities would shift from writing code and debugging to higher-level oversight, decision-making, and strategic planning—until these responsibilities can be automated too.

When they spoke on Dwarkesh's podcast they seemed to think this would take 30 years. Not sure why we coders are so quick to be automated but the rest aren't.

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/ege-tamay
by imiric | 2025-05-30 22:45:46+00:00
We've had similar experiences then, but I've arrived at a different conclusion. For me having to constantly babysit it, review and debug its output, and go through many rounds of back and forth without getting not just quality code, but working code at all, takes more time and effort than if I had done the research and written the code myself.

You're right that actually typing code is not our main activity. It's the last part of the process. To get there we need to understand the domain and the problem, do some research and come up with a design and implementation plan, and maybe do some exploratory work. LLMs can certainly help with writing boilerplate code, and it's what I've found them most useful for as well. They're also useful as slightly better rubber ducks, to get ideas I might not have thought about, or to assist with design, architecture, testing, etc. All this is fine, if we ignore the hallucination issues.

My problem is when I start asking them to write anything more sophisticated. Even when I give them a fairly detailed implementation plan (that they've helped me write), or point out an issue in great detail, more often than not they will lead me down wrong rabbit holes, produce non-working code I have to fix, and just waste my time. There have been very few cases where they've actually suggested a fix that turned out to be correct, or where what they've produced is usable, even after many iterations.

> Now they simply have more time to do these activities

That's the thing. I still have to do all those things you mentioned, while also babysitting an extremely confident junior engineer. This is why I feel that these tools are making me _less_ productive overall.
by therealpygon | 2025-05-30 22:45:53+00:00
In my opinion, I wouldn’t say so much that they are suddenly working. Rather we’ve reached a point where they can iterate and test significantly faster than humans are capable of doing and have the ability to call on significantly more immediately available information that it can make sense of, and as a result, the combination information, advancement and intelligently applied brute force seems to be having success in certain applications.
by growbell_social | 2025-05-30 22:47:26+00:00
The 2 years is only temporarily. To get more years of data we have to either A) pay Polygon $$$ or B) pull poor quality data from Yahoo finance. Until there's more product/market fit, we're refraining from A.

Your additional correlations are on point. Those fundamentals will be coming in before the end of summer. Sign up for the beta waitlist if you want to give it a go.

Or if you have a strategy you want to see tested, happy to give it a go and return the link!

And good luck on your next opportunity. You'll find something great.
by johnmw | 2025-05-30 22:47:39+00:00
Edit/Addendum: the full title of the video is "A.I. is a Religious Cult with Karen Hao". Karen Hao recently released a book called "Empire of AI - Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI".

I don't think the video title is great. The interview covers a wide range of topics around AI companies (often quite critically) and makes some interesting points.
by danilopopeye | 2025-05-30 22:48:00+00:00
I think the autor reference is from a chess master bing helped by an IA.

> (…) that’s not the kind of centaur that we talk about when it’s a chess master paired with a chess program. That chess master is being augmented by the machine, and the machine is the junior partner in the relationship. The human is the head, and the AI is the body.
by cvoss | 2025-05-30 22:48:03+00:00
If you'll permit me to tweak the example, I'll now instead choose

(\ a . a a) (\ x . \y . y x) => \ y . y (\ x . \ y' . y' x)

which still exhibits the variable shadowing problem.

In a good language (where "good" means the type system lets you do as much as you want to do while still being sound) you should be able to find some type for omega. The question is whether you can find the right type for omega to let us do what we want for this example.

Try the simple thing first:

w := (\ a : * -> * . a a) : (* -> *) -> * // works because (* -> *) is a subtype of *

Here is a bad thing you shouldn't be able to do with omega:

w w : untypable // thankfully, because (* -> *) -> * is not a subtype of * -> *

And here is a perfectly safe thing to do, which is exactly our example:

f := (\ x : * . \ y : * -> T . y x) : * -> (* -> T) -> T

w f : *

Unhappily such a weak type makes it pretty unusable within larger terms... So alternatively, we can try harder to find a good type for omega

w := (\ a : * -> (* -> T) -> T . a a) : (* -> (* -> T) -> T) -> (* -> T) -> T

w f : (* -> T) -> T // better!

Something similar would happen with the Y combinator. In a good language, there ought to be many valid types you can find for `\ f . (\ x . f x x) (\ x . f x x)` but not any that would permit you to construct a diverging computation with it.
by rekenaut | 2025-05-30 22:48:09+00:00
I feel that saying "120k is basically minimum wage for major metros" is absurd. As of 2022, there are only three metro areas in the US that have a per capita income greater than $120,000 [1] (Bay Area and Southwest Connecticut). Anywhere else in the US, 120k is doing pretty well for yourself, compared to the rest of the population. The average American working full time earns $60k [2]. I'm sure it's not a comfortable wage in some places, but "basically minimum wage" just seems ignorant.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
by m463 | 2025-05-30 22:49:15+00:00
I remember reading that people who were hypersensitive would avoid overstimulation.

Meanwhile, people with lower sensitivity needed more stimulation and became more prone to crime and risk taking.

I wonder if superfund sites decrease nerve efficiency leading to less stimulation and therefore risk taking.

EDIT:

A 2015 longitudinal study based on army medical records of Swedish men showed a correlation between low resting heart rate and violence and criminality, with the authors theorising that lower sensitivity to stimulation resulted in increased likelihood of risk-taking and sensation-seeking behaviour – effectively a low sensitivity counterpart to SPS."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing_sensitivity
by croblesm | 2025-05-30 22:51:20+00:00
You’re right—the old PostgreSQL extension was outdated. The team recently forked our modern MSSQL extension (I’m the Lead PM) to build a new one for PostgreSQL. It’s a fresh start, built on the same foundation we’re actively improving.

We’re still working on bringing over some Azure Data Studio features to the VS Code extension, especially around import/export (like flat file and DACPAC). I’d love to hear what else you think is missing.

If you’re interested, here’s our open roadmap: https://aka.ms/vscode-mssql-roadmap
by MangoToupe | 2025-05-30 22:51:25+00:00
> Software ate the world a very long time ago, so people being allergic to code while trying to run a business is only sounding more and more absurd as time marches on.

I don't agree with this at all. Part of the pitch of code is packing really nasty semantics into a single interface. This inherently reflects in the services we provide to clients. This interface should naturally correspond to UI, if that's what you offer. If you can only express the interface for your service in code, you've failed.

Unless of course you primarily operate a code-centric product, like an sdk.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-05-30 22:52:10+00:00
Yeah, worked at a one-hour photo store when I was a teen. "Put the screen down" was the signal that some "amateur stuff" was about to come down the print out-feed (a kind of curtain/cover would hide the prints coming out from the general public). (Kind of wild that people's photos coming out of the machine was something of a feature the store made readily visible to the passersby in the mall where the One House Photo was located. Privacy, what?)

And though I wasn't one of the techs that made the prints, I do seem to recall they would spin off dupes for their own private collection(s).
by lukev | 2025-05-30 22:52:59+00:00
Whenever I think about AI and labor, I can't help thinking about David Graeber's [Bullshit Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs).

And there's multiple confounding factors at play.

Yes, lots of jobs are bullshit, so maybe AI is a plausible excuse to downside and gain efficiency.

But also the dynamic that causes the existence of bullshit jobs hasn't gone away. In fact, assuming AI does actually provide meaningful automation or productivity improvemenet, it might well be the case that the ratio of bullshit jobs increases.
Show HN: Share accounts without sharing passwords
by hyes | 2025-05-30 22:57:56+00:00
I built this Chrome extension after getting tired of sharing passwords with friends for streaming services. Instead of exchanging credentials, it creates encrypted session tokens that let your friends access your accounts without ever seeing your password.

End-to-end encryption using client-side public/private keys Works with Netflix, Spotify, Disney+, and most streaming services Share with specific friends only – sessions aren't visible to anyone else One-click sharing, automatic session management
by hn_acc1 | 2025-05-30 23:00:20+00:00
I guess they've watched the expansion between two galaxies over time and found it increasing?

Otherwise, the fact that "the further away from us they are, they faster they were receding" made me think of this way:

-the further away they are, the longer the light had to travel to get here

-the longer the light had to travel, the longer it took to get to us

-the longer it took to get to us, the further into the past we are looking

-the further into the past we look (further distances), the faster they are receding - doesn't that imply it was faster in the past? The further past we look, the faster it is. The closer we look to home (the closer to "now"), the slower it is.
by ilamont | 2025-05-30 23:00:21+00:00
> it was the most steampunk thing I had ever seen.

Was it a Steenbeck? That's what I used when I was working on a documentary I shot on 16mm film. As I said earlier, it was a PITA. Here's one in action: https://youtu.be/Iiw86naTOPw?si=eu5wcZXWh5oPIqKu

More details here, including about the company's bankruptcy last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steenbeck
by chris_armstrong | 2025-05-30 23:01:36+00:00
The wildest claims are those of increased labor productivity and economic growth: if they were true, our energy consumption would be increasing wildly beyond our current capacity to add more (dwarfing the increase from AI itself).

Productivity doesn’t increase on its own; economists struggle to separate it from improved processes or more efficient machinery (the “multi factor productivity fudge”). Increased efficiency in production means both more efficient energy use AND being able to use a lot more of it for the same input of labour.
by dasil003 | 2025-05-30 23:01:59+00:00
> The roadmap to success will most likely start with training or fine-tuning on data from human professionals performing the task, and proceed with reinforcement learning in custom environments designed to capture more of the complexity of what people do in their jobs.

> [...]

> We think this is essentially a data problem, not an algorithms problem.

This is extremely hand-wavy. How are you going to instrument the various thought processes and non-verbal communication that goes into building successful software? A huge part of it is intuition about what makes sense to other humans. It's related to the idea of common sense, but in the software world there's this layer of unforgiving determinism and rigidity that most humans don't want to deal with. I just don't see how AI crosses that chasm.