MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sky2224 | 2025-05-29 06:44:23+00:00
The key is knowing when and how to use both.

If you can be twice as fast with something using AI and you're actively choosing not to use it, then yeah you're just being stubborn. Get over it or risk getting the boot.

There will be times though where you need to finish that last 10% of coding because the model just isn't refined enough for whatever task you're giving it. And from what I've experienced so far, that last 10% ends up being 70% of the work, which is where your expertise will come in.
by keepamovin | 2025-05-29 06:44:27+00:00
Made this when I was a kid. Fun. makes a snappy popping sound. But it’s also dangerous and it’s an actual explosive. it’s way too sensitive for practical use as the article says: it’s even detonated by alpha particles and nuclear fission products which is crazy.

From memory, I think it’s also a legitimate high explosive as it has a real detonation shockwave so it’s not just a fast burning incendiary but a true HE.

The reason I’m posting is because I had a question just randomly occurred to me: I wondered if anyone had ever investigated it for stabilization just like nitroglycerin is stabilized to create dynamite.

It’s probably extremely difficult, but I am curious if there’s ever any research of this. I guess you’d call it iodinite. Haha
by dinfinity | 2025-05-29 06:44:57+00:00
All the remaining jobs you mention involve physical labor. Those can not be taken by AI alone, obviously. They will be taken by robots, however.

The question is when. Robotics is in a worse shape than AI when compared to humans, but the industry is now rapidly integrating modern AI into both the process and the actual products. It's hard to say, but there might be a 'ChatGPT moment' for robotics soon.
by motorest | 2025-05-29 06:45:57+00:00
> I used to think there's nothing wrong with them either.

From your complain, it doesn't seem you're pointing anything wrong with .csproj files. You struggled with a usecases that's far from normal and might not even be right for you. Without details, it's hard to tell if you're missing something or you're blaming the tool instead of focusing on getting things to work.
by Ericson2314 | 2025-05-29 06:47:59+00:00
Easier to leave out the parallelism and just look at concurrency.

For a game like Mario, you can split up the memory and decide what you want to be shared and what do you want to be per-thread. E.g. starting small you can rig up just a few fixed variables like scores or whatever to be persisted from one game to the next. trying to push that further without causing endless corruption should be fun :)
by xinan2 | 2025-05-29 06:48:52+00:00
Just wanted to give a quick background, I am a business owner on hosting provider, and was a 10 years developer prior to opening my own business.

Recent years, the trend of people using Woocommerce + Wordpress has increased massively, and with that, comes bigger headache. People want cheap but fast solution, but Woocommerce and cheap hosting will never be within the same category. Most normal consumer will blame hosting provider. Thus, I decided to embark on a journey to create a simple replacement (not full) of Woocommerce. I have finished all functionality needed for a simple ecommerce, including payment, but 1 thing stumped me a lot. Customer is not IT Tech Savvy, most of them develop the Woocommerce with Elementor or any other Drag and Drop Builder. So unless I can find a plugin that can dynamically change the front end, I know my new ecommerce will not be accepted. After searching for multiple FOSS option, like GrapeJS and many others, I stumbled upon Puck Editor, and the rest is history.

It took me a day to understand the flow, and 1 week to build a working drag and drop builder including adding products dynamically to the puck editor. I cannot thank you enough for this.

With my skill, i doubt i can contribute much on Puck Development, but once mini-commerce is done, i will be making it MIT so that people that requires a quick ecommerce system can use or fork it.
by adrian_b | 2025-05-29 06:49:11+00:00
The yellow implied in "G-2" is just a convention, it has nothing to do with the real color (as seen outside the atmosphere; on the surface of the Earth all white stars are seen as yellowish).

Color temperatures in the range of 5000 K to 7000 K, where the "yellow" stars belong, are all seen as pretty pure white, with the range of 5500 K to 6000 K, like the Sun, as the whitest. Even a colder star at 4000 K is only very slightly yellowish. Going to lower temperatures, e.g. 3000 K or less, the color becomes definitely yellow, then orange, then red.

You can verify this by looking at lamps with specified color temperatures, to see what color they seem to have for you.

The Sun seen from the Earth is seen as yellowish at noon and as reddish at sunset and at dawn because of the low-pass filter effect of the atmosphere, which removes the blue light from the direct light of the Sun and spreads it over the sky. When the blue sky light and the direct yellowish Sun light are mixed again, like in clouds, you see white light, thus the clouds are white, which is the real color of the Sun. On the Moon, without atmosphere, the Sun would be white.

Going towards higher temperatures, the white stars become blue-green, then blue. There are no green-emitting black bodies.
by RugnirViking | 2025-05-29 06:49:42+00:00
I think it's more that the process of actually learning a language is much more time consuming than people expect. There's a sort of idea if you haven't done it before that you learn all the grammar rules, learn translations of each word, and then you're good.

But once you get into it you realise that doing this literally is both a massive task and also Sisyphean. Learning it like an algorithm you run through in your mind is way too slow. You have to just listen and interact with it enough that some other strange alien part of your mind can remember and understand it implicitly. It's a weird process to experience, when things "sound right" without knowing why etc.

Duolingo with it's single sentences, and especially how it tries to have 1-1 translations for everything is good, but not sufficient. It's best used as just a part of study, something to get vocab and a sense of basic grammar rules.

Why is it bad? Because their approach hits a plateau. The gamification at that point goes from good to bad. It's why people switch languages and learn like four at a time in Duolingo (bad for the alien brain bits that are trying to develop the one language) rather than stick with the one (because beyond a point it's more of the same level rather than moving up at a good pace)

It also kinda takes you away from going outside Duolingo and seeking out other things because if the gamification works you're doing that plus Duolingo rather than doing what's actually appropriate for your level
by somenameforme | 2025-05-29 06:52:01+00:00
When you make comments like this, it makes it sound like you think Germany tying their entire country's economy to Russian gas was a reasonable thing to do, because it's just trade after all. I'm trying to avoid straw manning you because I am certain you don't believe this, but your argument would suggest you do.

There is self beneficial trade, and there is trade which risks imperiling your own national stability if and when relations sour. People claim this is obvious in hindsight - and even criticize governments for not acting earlier, yet make arguments akin to yours (which frame it is a practical impossibility) when speaking of acting preemptively to resolve such issues.

And if there has been any trend of the 21st century it's to emphasize that the status quo on just about anything won't persist. So one needs to do like we always should in practically any endeavor - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
by bubblyworld | 2025-05-29 06:52:11+00:00
I don't think this is an important distinction. The point of Turing machines is that you can ask questions like "can all instances of this problem be solved uniformly, and how relatively expensive is it?". This requires infinite memory in a formal sense, because instances of (most) problems can be arbitrarily large.

Yes, if you ask the same question with a fixed (finite) memory restriction on everything, the answer is uninteresting. To me, this is... uninteresting. It tells you nothing about the underlying logical structure of your problem, which is what mathematicians are really trying to get at!

(first and foremost Turing machines are a tool for analysing problems mathematically, not a model of your laptop)

Also note that "states" in your sense are not the same as "states" in a Turing machine (which are just one of the inputs to the transition function). There are Turing machines with less than ten thousand states whose behaviour is undecidable in ZFC (https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04343).
by bloppe | 2025-05-29 06:52:45+00:00
All our real insights on this matter come from experiments involving amputations or lesions, like split brain patients, quadriplegics, Phineas Gage and others. Split brain patients are essentially 2 different people occupying a single body. The left half and right half can act and communicate independently (the right half can only do so nonverbally). On the other hand you could lose all your limbs and still feel pretty much the same, modulo the odd phantom limb. Clearly there is something special about the brain. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the self is embodied by neurons, and more than 99% of your neurons are in your brain. Sure you change a bit when you lose some of those peripheral neurons, but only a wee bit. All the other cells in your body could be replaced by sufficiently advanced machinery to keep all the neurons alive and perfectly mimic the electrical signals they were getting before (all your senses as well as propioception) and you wouldn't feel, think, or act any differently
by bbor | 2025-05-29 06:53:10+00:00
> This is IMO a typical mistake that comes mostly from our Western metaphysical sense of seeing the body as specialized pieces that make up a whole, and not as a complete unit.

But this is the case! All the parts influence each other, sure, and some parts are reasonably multipurpose — but we can deduce quite certainly that the mind is a society of interconnected agents, not a single cohesive block. How else would subconscious urges work, much less acrasia, much less aphasia?
by motorest | 2025-05-29 06:53:42+00:00
> Deciding whether something is netFramework 4.8 or .NET Core 5 or NET3000 or nEt5 or NET Common 2.0 is impossible.

Is it, though? The guidelines seem to be pretty straight forward: unless you want to target a new language feature, you can just target netstandard or whatever target framework your code requires at the moment. This barely registers as a concern.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standa...

> It's okay to read, but basically impossible to write by hand.

Are you sure about that? I mean, what's the best example you can come up with?

This complain is even more baffling considering a) the amount of XML editor helpers out there, b) the fact that most mainstream build systems out there are already XML-based.
by presentation | 2025-05-29 06:55:31+00:00
I don't agree with that - it spreads complexity all over without much of a benefit. You get the privacy downside of digital addresses having this "stalker" effect, and in turn everyone has to not only work to add support for these digital address codes, but they also need to make their systems robust to digital addresses being revoked, which they probably wouldn't.

In the status quo, it is clear you need to update addresses if you move; even if you don't, because you have to file a 転居届, Japan Post knows they need to redirect mail to your new address anyway; and you don't have the privacy worries.
by grues-dinner | 2025-05-29 06:56:12+00:00
They don't only require physical work. Only recently and quite briefly has any business been even potentially entirely non-physical. Maybe that's the aberration.

If you replace all people at all levels with robots (and the robots and their tasks don't require people to design, maintain or direct) then the "in safety" aspect of the final paragraph will probably become the important part.

If you can, say, design and build and run a railway network entirely automatically then we're well into singularity territory and there's literally no point guessing. The result could equally be infinite luxury space communism or all humans fed into the algae disgestors.
by ablob | 2025-05-29 06:56:42+00:00
I found a solution I am happy with. Based on my research into this it is a problem I'm not alone with. I do concede that writing your own analyzers is unusual (which is why i wrote that it's fine for simple setups). At the same time I deem having a common library to be referred by more than one analyzer project something that should be possible without running into strange errors.

If a tool (dotnet build) tells me something is wrong I am fine with it. If the same tool works after I added something to the project description and then fails at a random time after without having changed the referenced stuff, then I will happily blame the tool. Especially when commenting out the reference, recompiling until error, and then uncommenting it fixes the issue. While this behavior doesn't necessitate an issue with the files per-se, there is only entity consuming it, so to me there is no distinction.
by perihelions | 2025-05-29 06:57:09+00:00
> "The asteroid is a "quasi-satellite" of the Earth, meaning its orbit around the Sun closely matches that of our own planet. This keeps Kamoʻoalewa relatively close to Earth throughout the year, making it an attractive candidate for a sample return mission"

Also attractive targets for mining, for the same reasons. I wonder if that subtext is present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/469219_Kamoʻoalewa#Quasi-satel...

edit: Indeed .cn news frames it as a mining precursor,

> "By returning with samples from Kamo'oalewa, Tianwen 2 will test the technologies involved in conducting round trips from asteroids, increasing hopes of mining from the Asteroid Belt in the not-so-near future."

> "... Relatively low-cost, such missions can provide a better understanding of the early stages of the solar system and lead the way to the assessment of space resources and their utilization, as well as the development of asteroid-strike defense strategies."

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202407/11/WS668f1986a31095c5...
by chenchenchen | 2025-05-29 06:57:54+00:00
April 8, 2025: Adam Waterous, Managing Partner and Chief Executive Officer, Waterous Energy Fund, Calgary, Alberta, Canada was the Afternoon Keynote Speaker at the Ben Graham Centre for Value Investing's 2025 Value Investing Conference in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Waterous discussed the topic, “Value Investing in a Commodity Sector - Using a Margin of Safety Approach in a Historical Growth Equity Industry”.
by marcus_holmes | 2025-05-29 06:59:14+00:00
As I understand it, it's answering the question of why there's so much fine-tuning in the universe.

It's an explanation, it fits the observed data. It can't be tested, and the predictions it makes can't be verified. So until we can verify that new universes are created from black holes, with properties inherited from the parent universe, then it's just speculation. But interesting speculation.

And it's a real question that does need some kind of answer.
by ViewTrick1002 | 2025-05-29 06:59:40+00:00
https://www.reddit.com/r/prusa3d/comments/1k0zsrx/1000_duty_...

Not the highest tariffs since it wasn’t from China.

And a 170% tariff bill.

https://blog.adafruit.com/2025/05/08/high-tariffs-become-rea...
by tgma | 2025-05-29 07:01:30+00:00
I don't know which models you are using, but in my experience they have been way more than fancy autocomplete today. I have had thousand line programs written and refined with just a few prompts. On the analysis and code review side, they have been even more impressive, finding issues and potential impacts of changes and describing the intent behind the code. I implore you to revisit good models like Gemini 2.5 Pro. To wit, there was an actual Linux kernel vulnerability in SMB protocol stack discovered with LLM a few days ago.

Even if we take the narrow use case of boilerplate glue code that transforms data from one place to another, that encompasses almost all programs people write, statistically. There was a running joke at Google "we are just moving protobufs." I would not call this "fancy autocomplete."
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-05-29 07:01:43+00:00
Same on longer PTO doc, because there is always something weird going on that people should be aware of and no one should be able to say 'No one told me.' From that perspective, it is a useful CYA, but in my experience it genuinely helps everyone plan a little better.

That is the reason I think the Handover project has merit. What I personally hate however is the format ( video ), because I can see corporations adopting this out of sheer laziness. In other words, I don't wish this project be adopted by corporate America based on personal preferences, but I can kinda see them jumping on it.
by dmurray | 2025-05-29 07:02:03+00:00
Yes, I thought the article was really good until it got to that point.

> a halt detector can be trivially repurposed as a program optimizer / theorem-prover / bcrypt cracker / chess engine. It's too powerful, so we should expect it to be impossible.)

A Turing machine can be trivially repurposed as a bcrypt cracker or chess engine (for the same definition of trivial the author is using), so if it's not intuitive that a computer can do this, then your intuition is wrong.

Program optimizers and theorem provers also exist, of course, but in those cases the problems really are undecidable so no Turing machine is guaranteed to work on any given program or theorem.
by yusina | 2025-05-29 07:02:28+00:00
I appreciate your lengthy explanation and I largely agree with it, even though it probably doesn't help much because anybody who has not understood this yet will have stopped reading latest at 20% in. That's not your fault but just based on the observation that attention spans are short and people strongly prefer to spend their time on reading things they are interested in. And anybody interested in this subject who has this much time to spare has likely already done that elsewhere. But I'd be happy to be wrong and would welcome if just a single person gained better understanding through your text.

What I would suggest though is to avoid using the term "random" for this. I know you put it in quotes, but that term is so over-misused that we do it a disservice by adding more misuse. Numbers (or other objects) are not random, it's the process that produced them in some context that's random. Random processes have very specific, mathematically well-defined properties, just like the concept of decidability has, and throwing around the term with other meanings really does it a disservice, similar to doing the same for decidability.

What you are probably looking for is a term like "arbitrary".
by occz | 2025-05-29 07:02:41+00:00
This also exists for Kotlin: https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlin-script-examples/blob/master... (note that the file extension is load bearing in this case, if you don't name it "*.main.kts", it will not work).

It's excellent for writing small scripts/prototyping where you need access to some Kotlin/JVM feature.

Ruby is still my preferred language for small scripts though - the backticks for running external programs is remarkably ergonomic
by scroogey | 2025-05-29 07:02:54+00:00
But if you're "starting from scratch", then what would be the problem? If none of the results match what you want, you reiterate on your prompt and start from scratch. If one of them is suitable you take it. If there's no iterating on the code with the agents, then this really wouldn't add much mental overhead? You just have to glance over more results.
by ummonk | 2025-05-29 07:04:02+00:00
The complaint is that Hillel is providing an intuitive explanation but that intuition is clearly faulty, as demonstrated by two of the examples he gave.

P.S., you can run that proof finding algorithm (iterate through every candidate proof one by one and check for validity) for proofs of finite length in general, not just some fixed finite length. Where the halting oracle comes in is that you can use it to check whether the proof finding algorithm will ever halt, and thereby find out whether the theorem is provable or not.
by mnky9800n | 2025-05-29 07:06:10+00:00
I guess they mean stuff like this:

> That the first basic assumption had turned out to be utterly, eye-wateringly wrong should have led to some introspection in cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics about the validity of the second, and even more fundamental, unexamined assumption. But it didn’t.

Because it sort of implies that the original scientists coming up with these ideas should have been perfect and went about asking questions in the way the author does. (maybe the author doesn't mean it this way, but that's how it came across to me).

It's strange to me, we don't really have a firm understanding of how to define the edge of our understanding of the universe since by definition that understanding is diffuse. So why should people be perfectly exploring that edge? That is why I think it is better to focus on new ideas and what they add as opposed to criticizing old ideas.

For example, the other day I asked a colleague (who i will name Cooper) about if they had heard about another colleague's work (who I will call Audrey) because it sounded like they were working on something similar to me and might benefit from discussing with each other. Cooper said something to the effect of "everything they are doing is wrong and really just not as good as the work I am doing". And it's like, would you say this to Audrey's face? Does this comment make any kind of constructive arguments as to why your work is better than Audrey's? Isn't this rather anti-intellectual since you simply are dismissing Audrey's work instead of engaging them in a discussion? And my initial reaction to hearing that was to be dismissive of Cooper's work because I thought to myself, "what is Cooper defending right now, his work or his ego?"

To me, a primary goal of a scientist is to convince other people of their ideas through evidenced arguments. To me, if Cooper thinks that Audrey could learn something from Cooper's work, then Cooper should assume there is something to learn from Audrey's work. To me, the process they went about understanding the same/similar problems is as interesting as is whatever their solution ends up being. Perhaps Audrey has some reason to have designed her models differently from Cooper's that isn't apparent to Cooper. By dismissing her work, Cooper dismisses the opportunity to learn anything himself from it. There isn't any universal truth that some how elevates an individual above others because they understand Newton's Laws or whatever. There is simply what we personally understand and our desire to understand new things.
by lelanthran | 2025-05-29 07:07:13+00:00
> And a surprising level of speedup.

Not surprising at all; I keep pointing out that the language benchmarking game is rarely, if at all, reflective of real-world usage.

Any time you point out how slow JS is someone always jumps up with a link to some benchmark showing that it is only 2x slower than Go (or Java, or whatever).

The benchmarks game, especially in GC'ed languages, are not at all indicative of real-world usage of the language. Real world usage (i.e. idiomatic usage) of language $FOO is substantially different from the code written for the benchmarks games.