MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lurking_swe | 2025-05-04 23:59:54+00:00
That’s a disingenuous argument. You don’t know what you don’t know. Literally. A completely self guided high school graduate following random online materials will not learn nearly as much on their own. Or they will go down rabbit holes and waste countless hours, and not having an expert unblock you or guide you down the right path would waste a lot of time.

Further, some high school graduates (like myself at the time) literally don’t know HOW to learn on their own. I thought I did but college humbled me, made me realize that suddenly i’m in the drivers seat and my teachers won’t be spoon feeding me knowledge step by step. it’s a really big shift.

If you were the perfect high school graduate, then congrats, you’re like the 0.01%! And you should be proud (no sarcasm). This doesn’t describe society at large though.

For the very few that are extremely motivated and know exactly what job they want, i do think we need something in between self guided and college? No BS - strictly focusing on job training. Like a boot camp, but one that’s not a scam haha.

The other aspect of college you ignore is, it is a way to build a network prior to entering the workforce. It’s also one of the best times to date, but that’s another story.

Completely agree that the cost of college in the US is ridiculous though.
by robocat | 2025-05-05 00:00:15+00:00
Same author talks about Angel investors getting screwed by later rounds.

Here’s an example of a portfolio company that not only converted angel investor ownership to common stock, but also drastically decreased the number of shares. I started asking for pro-rata side letters in 2017. But I recently found out (the hard way) that it’s common for follow-on investors to completely disregard any pro-rata rights of angel investors.

https://www.halletecco.com/blog/angel-investing-part-iii#:~:...

Perhaps also relevant:

Founders, like entry-level workers, are closer to an option than a stock. There's a good chance that the payoff will be negative (in the sense that sometimes a company going to zero is a significant time-consuming process to investors). Someone who continuously buys out-of-the-money options will bleed money over time,

From: https://capitalgains.thediff.co/p/the-favor-trading-economy
by _AzMoo | 2025-05-05 00:00:17+00:00
I use LLMs a huge amount in my work as a senior software engineer to flesh out the background information required to make my actual contributions understandable to those without the same background as me. eg, if I want to write a proposal on using SLO's and error budgets to make data driven decisions about which errors need addressing and which don't, inside a hybrid kubernetes and serverless environment, I could do a few things:

* Not provide background information and let people figure it out for themselves. This will not help me achieve my goals.

* Link them to Google's SRE book and hope they read it. Still not achieving my goals, because they won't.

* Spend 3 hours writing the relevant background information out for them to read as part of my proposal. This will achieve my goals, but take an extra 3 hours.

* Tell the LLM what I'm looking for and why, then let it write it for me in 2 minutes, instead of 3 hours. I can check it over, make sure it's got everything, refine it a little, and I've still saved 2.5 hours.

So for me, I think the author has missed a primary reason people use LLMs. It saves a bunch of time.
by bumby | 2025-05-05 00:00:23+00:00
Academia clearly lost their monopoly on information. Since their last moat is a monopoly on credentials, I expect them to defend it intensely.

We could make it less meaningful if employers weren’t so keen on using credentials as their own gateway. That may have more of a chance of happening if the OPs perspective becomes more prevalent and the credential becomes an increasingly worse signal for meaningful skills.
by casey2 | 2025-05-05 00:00:50+00:00
Teachers say they would rather read the prompt but the truth is plain that they wouldn't

It's the old joke of the teacher who wants students to tried their best and that failure doesn't matter. But when the student follows the process to the best of their ability and fails they are punished while the student who mostly follows the process and then fudges their answer to the correct one is rewarded.
by gmuslera | 2025-05-05 00:01:00+00:00
He is misplacing his concerns. He and the ones like him, to fulfill the "we" there.

Oh, in US, for US citizens, intelligence agencies can't do dragnet surveillance. But it seem to be perfectly OK that it does that for the rest of the world.

It enables people to do non-consensual pornography. It may have democratized the realistic video part of it, but already was available the fan fiction part. Is the problem the democratization or the ability on who have enough budget or sponsored agenda for it? At some moment you have to cut somewhere and define where is the realistic line.

Same goes for misinformation, what is wrong is the democratization and not that the people with enough resources can do it?

About displacing industries, it depends, but was already a big abuse of some of those industries to people. Some will adapt. Some will become obsolete as it happened with the industries they replaced in their own turn.

AI is a tool. And as any tool, it empowers people using it, for good and bad. Is the people that you keep giving power the main ones misusing them. Those are the elephants in the room that you refuse to see.
by ffsm8 | 2025-05-05 00:01:14+00:00
I think that's because games are an art and highly creative. You're crafting an experience, usually a combination of story and gameplay.

Regular software projects can also be creative, but almost all software is pure CRUD at the heart.

The next issue is the required time for the MVP. For a game, you can validate the base game loop quiet quickly. It's a lot harder to validate wherever regular software is actually viable, because you usually need to basically finish it entirely before the UX can really be validated if a mock-up doesn't suffice
by trbndev | 2025-05-05 00:01:16+00:00
Unduck actually also uses service workers to cache the app locally

https://github.com/t3dotgg/unduck/blob/91a66c25de8b0e7ac5ba5...

—-

> Is there any advantage to using service workers?

With service workers we can intercept the `fetch` request, before the index.html gets rendered/loaded. One should (in theory) be redirected some micro-seconds faster than doing the redirect in the index.html js
by jjmarr | 2025-05-05 00:01:43+00:00
It's relatively easy to catch cheaters. There's constant banwaves in Valorant, CS2, and Rainbow Six Siege. The challenge is that cheat authors fix their exploits to be undetectable, and the cheaters get a new account in a week or two. This means detecting cheats does not have a lasting impact on cheating's presence in a game. The prevalence of cheating is the problem a game developer is trying to solve.
by djoldman | 2025-05-05 00:03:14+00:00
> I’m concerned about the kind of antisocial behaviors that AI will enable.

> Coordinated inauthentic behavior

> Misinformation

> Nonconsensual pornography

> Displacing entire industries without a viable replacement for their income

The first three of these existed and occurred before the arrival of AI. Perhaps AI makes doing the first 3 easier. If there are not laws governing the first three post-AI, do we need laws governing them? If so, what do those look like?

As for "displacing entire industries without a viable replacement for their income" - yea, as a civilization we need to retrain and reeducate those whose livelihoods are displaced by automation. This too has been true forever...
by mrcsharp | 2025-05-05 00:03:26+00:00
> The current administration will consider any action against billionaires as domestic terrorism as witnessed with Tesla's recent boycotts

Firebombing/damaging civilian cars and civilian buildings belonging to TESLA due to political ideologies is, by definition, terrorism. Regardless of which administration is in power, the law says you cannot do this so it is their job to stop it.

Don't call it a boycott when there's more to it than just not buying a car.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-05-05 00:04:15+00:00
Thy this, get the real massive paper copy of the Grainger catalog from your local outlet.

Then download the catalog in PDF form.

Compare the speed with which you can page through 100 pages or more at maximum physical speed which is useful enough visually for you to get enough of a grasp to stop exactly where you need to, when you wouldn't know exactly what to search for in text form anyway.
by mschuster91 | 2025-05-05 00:04:43+00:00
Everyone cheats, I think no one here is seriously arguing that, no matter the country.

The question is: who coughs up the money for developing these cheats? Some of these, particularly the PCIe hardware rootkits, take a lot of money, time and skilled people to develop - and it is not too far fetched to assume that a nation state has been of assistance here.

Others openly flout their allegiance to Russia like the MIG-Switch developers, a ton of "bulletproof hosters" use Russian ASNs and/or are based in Russia, malware automatically disables itself when it detects indications of being in Russia... I can explain the latter away as "don't shit where you eat", but the others? There's no way there aren't direct links between the Russian government and the criminal actors. At the very least there must be some sort of "tacit approval".
by tmpz22 | 2025-05-05 00:05:30+00:00
Is it me or are observability stacks kind of ridiculous. Logs, metrics, and traces, each with their own databases, sidecars, visualization stacks. Language-specific integration libraries written by whoever felt like it. MASSIVE cloud bills.

Then after you go through all that effort most of the data is utterly ignored and rarely are the business insights much better then the trailer park version ssh'ing into a box and greping a log file to find the error output.

Like we put so much effort into this ecosystem but I don't think it has paid us back with any significant increase in uptime, performance, or ergonomics.
by abeindoria | 2025-05-05 00:05:34+00:00
the Bambu P1S with AMS is one of the better purchases I've made. I've had an ender3v2 for so long and while it worked ok (and arguably better than many people's experiences with them), I got tired of constantly fiddling with stuff.

Now, it just works. It doesn't matter what I throw at it. Made me get into the CAD hobby too.

>use Claude to write your parametric OpenSCAD scripts

Can you talk a little about it?
by alganet | 2025-05-05 00:05:39+00:00
The suggestion that an artificial intelligence follows a specific kind of writing style is a trap.

Relying on that to automatically detect their use makes no sense.

From a teaching perspective, if there is any expectation that artificial intelligence is going to stick, we need better teachers. Ones that can come up with exercises that an artificial intelligence can't solve, but are easy for humans.

But I don't expect that to happen. I expect instead text to become more irrelevant. It already has lost a lot of its relevancy.

Can handwriting save us? Partially. It won't prevent anyone from copying artificial intelligence output, but it will make anyone that does so think about what is being written. Maybe think "do I need to be so verborragic?".
by IAmGraydon | 2025-05-05 00:05:48+00:00
Here’s the thing…as long as we live in a capitalist society, money will be put in front of people because the very essence of capitalism is to turn a higher profit and anything that impedes that is evolved away. So the question to ask is whether we will remain a capitalist society. If you believe the answer is yes, the only thing to do is adapt, whether you like it or not. Resisting the change will only put you behind the curve. I’m not proclaiming a stance on AI here, but I think it’s prudent to be a realist.
by ValdikSS | 2025-05-05 00:06:00+00:00
If you're implying something, then please get your thoughts across more clearly. The title says "profit goes to open-source", meaning CUPS, SANE, AirSane projects, which are FOSS (free and open-source), if the publicly available code and collaborative development is what you're referring to.

Additional software (web interface, scripts, utilities) is free, the source code is included in the source package.

The customer is provided with the source code of the firmware components, and with the build system based on mkosi[1] to build the complete firmware: starting from bootstrapping Debian 12 builder image which cross-compiles the packages with additional patches and builds additional software, to ARM Debian 12 image with everything compiled in the previous stage, to the final squashfs OS file and MicroSD image.

[1]: https://github.com/systemd/mkosi
by ansgri | 2025-05-05 00:06:01+00:00
While this is a good idea in theory, one needs quite a lot of patience to deal with its bugs and kernel limitations. It has definitely become much better since 1.0, but the inability to put chamfers and fillets wherever is extremely annoying — whether the features compute is order-dependent and they routinely conflict with each other for unclear reasons.

So, maybe it’s not a bad idea to start with a free version of something more ergonomic, just to avoid getting too discouraged.
by photonthug | 2025-05-05 00:06:19+00:00
The weirdest thing about this closer is, after a huge article and what looks like an attempt to end on a zinger, it lands ambiguously and I can't make sense of it. Seems like it's missing a word? Isn't it supposed to be " .. not to those.., but those who" ? It looks like they just ran out of steam, any interpretation of the closer doesn't exactly follow logically, reinforce, or conclude the rest of the article anyway
by ashwinsundar | 2025-05-05 00:06:29+00:00
I use Mermaid a lot, and my biggest gripe is the lack of normalized syntax. Everytime I want to create a new type of diagram, it's like learning a new language. I'm a big diagram-as-code proponent (https://ashwinsundar.com/posts/diagrams-as-code/) - however, I get the impression that no one at Mermaid is really talking to each other when making new features. There doesn't seem to be much thought for how to make the syntax cohesive or easy-to-grok
by skydhash | 2025-05-05 00:07:22+00:00
I think there’s a factor of speed there, not a factor of insight or knowledge. If all you have is ‘ed’ and a printer, then I think most of the time you will spend is with the printout. ‘vi’ eliminates the printout and the tediousness of going back and forth.

Same with more advanced editors and IDEs. They help with tediousness, which can hinders insight, but does not help it if you do not have the foundation.
by bluGill | 2025-05-05 00:08:44+00:00
archers wouldn't do the because unlike a gun you cannot hold it loaded for long. So your order would be draw and fire. You can of course hold abow drawn for maybe a minute - but why do that when you can fire 6 arrows in that time which might hit.

If the enemy is out of range you might wait with an arrow knocked but not drawn - but if that is what they were doing the order would be to draw. there is no real point of such an order though - archers are themselves smart enough to estimate their own range (which as the other response pointed out was not the same for every archer), and thus make their own decisions. The only reason to hold fire until everyone was ready was if the combine fire was devistating enough - but there is every reason to think combined fire wouldn't be devistating.
by trbndev | 2025-05-05 00:08:48+00:00
What an interesting library. Thanks for mentioning it here… will definitely look into it!

—-

The bangs are at

https://github.com/t128n/routr/blob/main/src/sw/routes.ts

Mostly ripped from duckduckgo.com/bang.js and then pretty-formatted with Prettier… with some sane-defaults added like a bang for ChatGPT or T3 Chat
by Crestwave | 2025-05-05 00:11:47+00:00
> This only came to light after the study had already been running for a few months. That proves that we can no longer tell for certain unless it's literal GPT-speak the author was too lazy to edit themselves.

Rule 3 of the subreddit quite literally bars people from accusing posts of being AI-generated. I have only visited it a few times in recent times, but I noticed quite a few GPT-speak posts with comments calling it out getting removed and punished.
by Grosvenor | 2025-05-05 00:11:49+00:00
How do I upvote you multiple times.

"hackathons" were lame once they got a name. They became lame because it wasn't exploring what interested you, pushing frontiers but had a define goal that wasn't yours. You have to fit into someone else's plan for the "hackathon", and what the outcomes would be.

How on earth is there anything "hackerish" if you're diligently fitting into someone else's plan? Lame.
by Handprint4469 | 2025-05-05 00:12:21+00:00
> But there is a feedback loop: If you change the incentive structures, people’s behaviors will certainly change, but subsequently so, too, will those incentive structures.

This is a good point, and somewhat subtle too. Something that worries me is the acceleration of the feedback loop. The Internet, social media, smartphones, and now generative AI are all things that changed how information is generated, consumed and distributed, and changing that affects the incentive structures and behaviors of the people interacting with that information.

But information is spread increasingly faster, in higher amounts and with higher noise, and so the incentives landscape keeps shifting continuously to keep up, without giving people time to adapt and develop immunity against the viral/parasitic memes that each landscape births.

And so the (meta)game keeps changing under our feet, increasingly accelerating towards chaos or, more worryingly, meta-stable ideologies that can survive the continuous bombardment of an adversarial memetic environment. I say worryingly, because most of those ideologies have to be, by definition, totalizing and highly hostile to anything outside of them.

So yeah, interesting times.
by dimatura | 2025-05-05 00:13:29+00:00
Slicing up images to analyze them is definitely something people do - in many cases, such as satellite imagery, there is not much alternative. But it should be done mindfully, especially if there are differences between the training and testing steps. Depending on the architecture and the application, it's not the same as processing the whole image at once. Some differences are more or less obvious (for example, you might have border artifacts), but others are more subtle. For example, contrary to the expected positional equivariance of convolutional nets, they can implicitly encode positional information based on where they see border padding during training. For some types of normalization such as instance normalization, the statistics of the normalization may vary significantly when applied across patches or whole images.
by pixelready | 2025-05-05 00:13:55+00:00
Ahead of the inevitable Luddite comments. Here’s your daily reminder that the Luddites were not just technophobes, but were in fact artisans who were concerned about the leverage technology was providing capital to suppress worker rights while eroding the quality of the products. This tension should resonate with us.

https://www.history.com/articles/industrial-revolution-luddi...

The AI conversation tends to split folks along similar “passionate engineer craftsman” vs. “temporarily embarrassed billionaire” lines.
by bsder | 2025-05-05 00:14:48+00:00
The issue isn't cheating--the issue is that cheaters can come back cheaply. Consequently, human moderation of cheating doesn't really work.

Given how intrusive these anti-cheats are, identity verification and login would be less intrusive.

At least with verification, when you ban a cheater, they stay banned. At that point, you can put humans in the loop.
by streptomycin | 2025-05-05 00:15:55+00:00
> I do not actually believe “The Singularity” is a realistic threat due to every system that exhibits exponential growth encountering carrying capacities, which converts it into an S-curve.

Depending on the parameters of the curve, an S-curve may be effectively the same as an exponential curve. For instance if the IQ of AIs reach a plateau of 500 rather than exponentially increasing to infinity, we may not be around to see the plateau.
by d0ublespeak | 2025-05-05 00:16:39+00:00
Yeah CTFs are definitely a big part of our culture in security. We’re blessed with unending material in the form of vulnerabilities and mis configurations :)

I will say (as someone that runs, organises and builds CTFs) organising meaningful CTFs is becoming slightly challenging though, a lot of challenges are highly treaded ground where one very mature team just comes along and clears the table.

That and generative AI can solve a lot of CTF problems with enough prodding if it’s at all derivative.
by nkraft11 | 2025-05-05 00:17:20+00:00
I can say that going from a place that had all of that observability tooling set up to one that was at the "ssh'ing into a box and greping a log" stage, you best believe I missed company A immensely. Even knowing which box to ssh into, which log file to grep, and which magic words to search far was nigh impossible if you weren't the dev that set up the machine and wrote the bug in the first place.
by MichaelApproved | 2025-05-05 00:17:33+00:00
I think the nuance is that OP is charging for hardware , software, and service (firmware customization and support).

With regards to the software, it is open source but OP is only providing the code to customers who receive the end product. In part, OP is acting as a distributor of the software and is charging a fee for that distribution.

If anyone else gets their hands on that software, they can choose to become a distributor and make it publicly available. It’s their freedom to do so.

A overly simple way to look at is is that OP is choosing (as a small part of their business) to charge for the distribution of the source code but not the source itself.

In reality, it’s unlikely that OP will have a customer who only wants the source code and is willing to pay a fee for the distribution of it. Their customers are coming to them for the service and support.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-05-05 00:17:46+00:00
LLMs and AI use create new dichotomies we don’t have language for.

Exploring a concept-space with LLM as tutor is a brilliant way to educate yourself. Whereas pasting the output verbatim, passing it as one’s own work, is tragic: skipping the only part that matters.

Vibe coding is fun right up to the point it isn’t. (Better models get you further.) But there’s still no substitute for guiding an LLM as it codes for you, incrementally working and layering code, committing to version control along the way, then putting the result through both AI and human peer code reviews.

Yet these all qualify as “using AI”.

We cannot get new language for discussing emerging distinctions soon enough. Without them we only have platitudes like “AI is a powerful tool with both appropriate and inappropriate uses and determining which is which depends on context”.
by codingdave | 2025-05-05 00:17:47+00:00
TIL Trump thinks that movies are critical to national security. Yes, that corner of the entertainment industry is dying. But not because of production locations. Because streaming is evolving the business models and younger generations simply don't care about movies as much as older generations did. I'm no sociologist, but it would not surprise me if when Hollywood dies, most of the USA gives out a great big "meh."