MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrweasel | 2025-05-27 14:18:01+00:00
> The fact that AI can do your homework should tell you how much your homework is worth.

Homework is there to help you practise these things and have help you progress, find the areas where you're in need of help and more practise. It is collaborative, it's you, your fellow students and your teachers/professors.

I'm sorry that you had bad teachers, or had needs that wasn't being meet by the education system. That is something that should be addressed. I just don't think it's reasonable to completely dismiss a system that works for the majority. Being mad at the education system isn't really a good reason for say "AI/computers can do all these things, so why bother practising them?"

Schools should learn kids to think, but if the kids can't read or reasonably do basic math, then expecting them to have independent critical thinking seems a way of. I don't know about you, but one of the clear lessons in "problem math" in schools was to learn to reason about numbers and result, e.g. is it reasonable that a bridge span 43,000km? If not, you probably did something wrong in your calculations.
by mmooss | 2025-05-27 14:18:04+00:00
But you can see em dashes everywhere (it's harder to distinguish en dashes). As I said above, plenty of software - very popular software such as Microsoft Word and phone keyboards - inserts em dashes automatically or when you type two hyphens.

Also, throughout history I doubt everyday people thought about using em, en or hyphen. It's a detail known by professionals, like things professional chefs or coders do that amatuers don't.
by evilduck | 2025-05-27 14:18:16+00:00
A large number of games don’t even get physical releases anymore. Buying a console for entirely offline usage diminishes the value proposition, basically nobody will choose to do this because you’re not really buying what is being sold anymore.

The other problem with incentives around bricking devices sold for a loss is that when the seller is big enough to absorb a bit of negative PR they also have no incentive to address false positives or small infractions, any time spent dealing with these users is viewed as compounding the loss. It also generates a bunch of electronic waste as a consequence.
by karaterobot | 2025-05-27 14:18:16+00:00
> Airbnb announced a new design and we’ve all just collectively accepted that it’s the future?

Don't overindex on one guy with a newsletter. My read on this article was this is someone trying to be the guy who called the next trend. He cites no evidence supporting the claim that it's the next trend, he's just trying to be the guy who puts a name to it so that he's an influencer if it does.

He also mentions how he's been designing icons in this style for decades, which should make a skeptical person wonder whether there might be some wishful thinking going on here.

What I can tell you for sure is that, as a professional designer, I have not received any memos mandating the use of this style of icons. I'll let you know when I do.
by rawgabbit | 2025-05-27 14:18:18+00:00
A pet peeve of mind is the word negotiation in the context of user requirements.

In the business user’s mind, negotiation means the developer can do X but the developer is lazy. Usually, it is requirement X doesn’t make any sense because a meeting was held where the business decided to pivot to a new direction and decided the new technical solution. The product owner simply gives out the new requirement without the context. If an architect or senior developer was involved in the meeting, they would have told the business you just trashed six months of development and we will now start over.
by melvinroest | 2025-05-27 14:19:05+00:00
> I was criticized for pointing out spurious nonsense in LLM slop

I can see that you experience it as such but I think it's more of a spectrum. Often times, LLMs give good answers. Often enough times they don't. One needs to keep that in mind. In my example, given that it was just a symbol, all I needed was knowledge at the level of a memnonic which would, on average, at least somewhat also point directionally to the truth. But that's a bonus. I could make up a memnonic myself, but I like having that bonus.

Given that ChatGPT is directionally towards the truth, but not fully (on average), I'd need to test it or verify it if I want a better level of knowledge than that. If that's the case, then ChatGPT is basically acts as a sort of cache as it's quicker to ask a question to ChatGPT than to research on one's own. One can experience a cache hit or cache miss. Such a thing will happen in the verification stage. Specifically, for math this is quicker, in my experience.

But anyways that's my experience. Your experience is that it's spurious nonsense slop. And I suppose you therefore find it a problem. I don't see the issue as there are different levels of knowledge and different time commitments you need to give to them. A lot of my knowledge is based on trust anyway and sometimes it's broken (e.g. replication crisis in psychology, I felt betrayed having studied the field).

> I don't know why anyone would think they are owed a custom explanation for their specific questions

I'm not sure if anyone said anything like it. Regardless of that, the need still exists. People will still act on that need. I suspect you see that as a problem. I'm neutral on it.

> thinking like that will get you in trouble when you come to depend on what anyone (or anything) is willing to chew up for you.

IMO teaching and learning is a 2 way street. It's the teacher's job to explain it well enough. It's the student's job to do their best to understand it. Math Academy offers exercises and explanations. Sometimes I find their explanations a bit lacking. So I use other sources to augment it.

> Maybe I was terse but I don't think I was rude or illogical.

Reading/writing text is tough, which is why I stated how I felt. It'd probably have been easier in an actual conversation. I didn't mean to imply you were being rude or illogical.
by crakhamster01 | 2025-05-27 14:19:17+00:00
I'm increasingly certain that companies leaning too far into the AI hype are opening themselves up to disruption.

The author of this post is right, code is a liability, but AI leaders have somehow convinced the market that code generation on demand is a massive win. They're selling the industry on a future where companies can maintain "productivity" with a fraction of the headcount.

Surprisingly, no one seems to ask (or care) about how product quality fares in the vibe code era. Last month Satya Nadella famously claimed that 30% of Microsoft's code was written by AI. Is it a coincidence that Github has been averaging 20 incidents a month this year?[1] That's basically once a work day...

Nothing comes for free. My prediction is that companies over-prioritizing efficiency through LLMs will pay for it with quality. I'm not going to bet that this will bring down any giants, but not every company buying this snake oil is Microsoft. There are plenty of hungry entrepreneurs out there that will swarm if businesses fumble their core value prop.

[1] https://www.githubstatus.com/history
by btown | 2025-05-27 14:19:18+00:00
I feel like there needs to be a notion of "tainted" sessions that's adopted as a best practice. The moment that a tool accesses sensitive/private data, the entire chat session should be flagged, outside of the token stream, in a way that prevents all tools from being able to write any token output to any public channel - or, even, to be able to read from any public system in a way that might introduce side channel risk.

IMO companies like Palantir (setting aside for a moment the ethical quandaries of the projects they choose) get this approach right - anything with a classification level can be set to propagate that classification to any number of downstream nodes that consume its data, no matter what other inputs and LLMs might be applied along the way. Assume that every user and every input could come from quasi-adversarial sources, whether intentional or not, and plan accordingly.

GitHub should understand that the notion of a "private repo" is considered trade-secret by much of its customer base, and should build "classified data" systems by default. MCP has been such a whirlwind of hype that I feel a lot of providers with similar considerations are throwing caution to the wind, and it's something we should be aware of.
by jodrellblank | 2025-05-27 14:19:23+00:00
We aren't mates. "anyone I love I do not want to work until their 70 and I also do not want any 70-year olds performing surgery either" these are two different positions. One is "I don't want people having to work" which I agree with. The other is "I've judged 70 year olds as incapable of doing useful skilled work" which is ageist.

“lets get them all to a construction site” - this is not my position.
by cubefox | 2025-05-27 14:20:15+00:00
Propositional logic is about Boolean inferences like "If A then B, A, therefore B". The link you provided expands this to the more complex predicate logic, of which syllogisms (discussed in the article) are special cases. E.g. "Everything that is X is also Y. This is X. Therefore, this is Y."

Though I would also note that most introductions to symbolic logic do ommit the (in this context) most important part: On how to translate natural language arguments to formal logic, and the other way round. This task is very much non-trivial. A few textbooks aimed at philosophers do this, though most don't.
by fzzzy | 2025-05-27 14:20:24+00:00
Doesn't matter if you want it or not, it's going to be available, because only an llm that can do that will be useful for actual scientific discovery. Individuals that wish to do actual scientific discovery will know the difference, because they will test the output of the llm.

[edit] In other words, llms that lie less will be more valuable for certain people, therefore llms that tell you when you are dumb will eventually win in those circles, regardless of how bruising it is to the user's ego.
by bsenftner | 2025-05-27 14:20:32+00:00
For the most part, most universities, that is true. I was dissatisfied with the quality of my undergrad college education, and had the resources to try other universities. After two state schools, I figured out that Boston is The University City with 700,000 college students in the larger Boston area when I attended Boston University, MIT and Harvard. I found Boston's over sized undergraduate population created a credit sharing system for all the Boston area colleges, and if one wanted they could just walk onto anther campus and take their same class at your university. So, of course, I took at the classes I could at Harvard. I was formally an engineering student at BU, but as far as the professors at Harvard and MIT knew I was a student at their school. What I found was that at Harvard, and about 75% of the time at MIT, the professors are incredibly good, they are the educational best self actualizing as teachers. Every single Harvard professor took a personal interest in my learning their subject. I saw that no where else.
by rtkwe | 2025-05-27 14:20:33+00:00
You get a working web cam. It's a requirement for many remote proctoring services and if you don't have access to one you're screwed.

I get why they use it, without it there's no way to know you're not on your phone or another device cheating since they can only really see what's on the device you've installed the proctor software/rootkit on.

Sadly Linus Tech Tips video of him taking the CompTIA A+ exam has been taken down after threatening letters from CompTIA but they demanded a basically baren room, 360 photos and spotless web cams.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-05-27 14:20:56+00:00
It eventually did, but it took a few years, after I left. GE had a lot of money to burn, back then. I remember going to a corporate party, at this mega-fancy catering campus, in Chantilly, VA. Green serpentine walls, grecian columns, reflecting pools, etc. Pretty crazy.

I think that Welch spawned a whole bunch of "Mini-Jacks," that worked to be what they thought he wanted.

The division was doing badly, and this guy was sent in to "clean it up."

I suspect that he ended up "cleaning it out," which was probably a win, in his book.

I worked with some top-shelf engineers, back then. GE could hire the best. If they had been managed well, they could have been awesome.

The management, however, was terrible, especially at the higher levels. Lots of nice suits and cufflinks, but very little smarts.
by srean | 2025-05-27 14:21:00+00:00
Thanks for the kind validation.

I am still very bad as far as writing research papers go. That's one area my advisor's feedback helped a lot. Anything I wrote would need multiple passes.

My writing's bad, partly because of bad grammar and partly because once the cool results of the research is done, my heart is really not into writing it. It becomes a chore.

EDIT: I see no reason why your comment got down-voted.
by mmooss | 2025-05-27 14:21:19+00:00
More racism on their part - that's the problem, as I said. I also very much doubt that is true, but generally people do generally segregate by economic means, and first generation immigrants understandably tend to live in their own communities, everywhere. Where else do you find people to talk to, who understand you; where else do you even find dinner or some decent proper tea?

Racism is the problem.
by throwanem | 2025-05-27 14:21:39+00:00
And of course every relationship is both bijective and linear from one data point over an infinite domain.

We could talk about this utter misrepresentation of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ but why? You haven't read it. You won't. At most you will follow the examples you cite in prooftexting from it like a Southern Baptist inveighing against homosexuality. Kindly find someone else whose time so to waste.
by erincandescent | 2025-05-27 14:22:27+00:00
Being that prescriptive is fundamentally unworkable in practice. Propagating unknown attributes is fundamentally what made the deployment of 32-bit AS numbers possible (originally RFC 4893; unaware routers pass the `AS4_PATH` attribute without needing to comprehend it), large communities (RFC 8092), the Only To Customer attribute (RFC 9234) and others.

A BGP Update message is mostly just a container of Type-Length-Value attributes. As long as the TLV structure is intact, you should be able to just pass on those TLVs without problems to any peers that the route is destined for.

The problem fundamentally is three things:

1. The original BGP RFC suggests tearing down the connection upon receiving an erroneous message. This is a terrible idea, especially for transitive attributes: you'll just reconnect and your peer will resend you the same message, flapping over and over, and the attribute is likely to not even be your peer's fault. The modern recommendation is Treat As Withdraw, i.e. remove any matching routes from the same peer from your routing table.

2. A lack of fuzz testing and similar by BGP implementers (Arista in this case)

3. Even for vendors which have done such testing, a number of have decided (IMO stupidly) to require you to turn on these robustness features explicitly.
by Swizec | 2025-05-27 14:22:33+00:00
> I'm saying there's no ruling out they might be able to do it soon

Even experienced engineers can be surprisingly bad at this. Not everyone can tell their boss “That’s a stupid requirement and here’s why. Did you actually mean …” when their paycheck feels on the line.

The higher you get in your career, the more that conversation is the job.
by mrsilencedogood | 2025-05-27 14:22:42+00:00
I suspect this is because open-core companies are often just 1 rugpull away from being not open at all. Open-core just means if I have some small bug, I might PR to fix it if it's not too hard for me. I am absolutely not doing free work for that company.

Meanwhile, I would consider doing actual work for software projects that were just a couple people and a mission.
by erikerikson | 2025-05-27 14:23:05+00:00
I recognize all this. Of course different mechanisms of authentication can be used in APIs. There is also of course a swap in who plays server and client when hitting a company's API vs receiving a webhook request from that same company.

The key difference isn't with the mechanism of authentication (although that is different) but who specifies, implements, and maintains the authentication. Webhook providers do a lot of work to avoid putting that on their clients and to keep centralized control over their implementation.
by nashashmi | 2025-05-27 14:23:31+00:00
Use excel to upload a large list

Crazy to charge money at such an early stage.

It is not very simple. But it is an attempt.

Custom link via sms and WhatsApp for each person who you want to send invite to.

Use a better domain name system.

Use the event template to create simple template for each kind of event.

Charge money for custom templates and data storage of contacts. Otherwise, allow them to use their own css and allow for local storage of contact data.

Don’t charge money for stupid stuff like quantity of attendees. This is the web. Scaling is free.
by sanderjd | 2025-05-27 14:23:46+00:00
Maybe, but I honestly don't buy it. (As I said, I do buy that they deserve some blame.)

To me, the web everyone here is nostalgic for was mostly killed by the much larger majority of people whose revealed preference has been for something totally different. Nobody I know outside techie forums would have any idea what we're talking about with this critique of the web. They don't know or care about the "indie web" or other information-rich independent websites. They know and care about facebook, instagram, and tiktok. This isn't (entirely) Google's fault, it's what most people have shown that they want.
by vishnumohandas | 2025-05-27 14:23:47+00:00
Thanks a bunch for the feedback!

We chose a cross-platform framework to keep the team small, longevity is important for a company like Ente.

Also, we understand moving to native is inevitable. We should have sufficient engineering bandwidth to invest in a rewrite towards the end of 2026. Hopefully you will give us another shot then :)

Thanks again!
by antifa | 2025-05-27 14:24:10+00:00
Low Poly is a market signal for not-filled-with-microtranactions in addition to nostalgia. Plus, a tiny indie dev team who is passionate (not greedy) can do a coherent art design around low poly, whereas anything higher might 100x the work/budget required to make the game look like it's not a salad of random disjointed asset packs.
by masfuerte | 2025-05-27 14:24:19+00:00
I took one last year. Microsoft offer a choice of remote proctoring or in-person at a Pearson VUE test centre. I chose the latter.

You put your stuff in a locker. They compare your face to some official photo ID and take your photo. You sit the test. They print out your results along with your mugshot. That's it. It was very painless.
by treetalker | 2025-05-27 14:24:23+00:00
For the last week I've been listening to the recordings by The Academy of Ancient Music under Egarr, and by the Concerto Italiano under Alessandrini. The latter is fun and raw and jaunty — it feels much more alive than the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields / Sir Neville Mariner recordings.

Will check out the St. Petersburg Opera Orchestra / Titov recordings today — thanks for the recommendation!
by bunderbunder | 2025-05-27 14:24:52+00:00
> I feel that a lot of information they present is purposely misinterpreted by their teams for media or pr/clout or who knows what reasons.

I think it's just the culture of machine learning research at this point. Academics are better about it, but still far from squeaky clean. It can't be squeaky clean, because if you aren't willing to make grand overinflated claims to help attract funding, someone else will be, and they'll get the research funding, so they'll be the ones who get to publish research.

It's like an anthropic principle of AI research. (rimshot)
by codingdave | 2025-05-27 14:24:55+00:00
When I worked in energy, there was a definite gap between what the people in the office thought was going on vs. the reality out in the field. What looked good on paper and in the data did not mean it would actually work. We relied on the guys out in the field to help us plan correctly because they knew the reality.

So maybe these Gridcare guys are right, and there is a usable gap. But I wouldn't bank on it unless discussions are happening outside of corporate conference rooms, and include consultations with the people in the field who actually operate the systems.
by mmooss | 2025-05-27 14:25:16+00:00
Agreed. And the idea that you can call people criminals based on their ethnic heritage is plain racism - they are individuals who will themselves succeed or fail, be good or bad, just like individuals whose parents already lived in the country. Some of those people do bad things like promote hate and racial discrimination, but we can't say that about all of them; it's their individual choice and action.
by gosub100 | 2025-05-27 14:25:36+00:00
True, but it detracts from the enjoyment of everyone else by reducing payouts if algo players come in. Why place a bet on a multi-race jackpot if you know you're going to share it with multiple algo bettors? Why stand in line at the kiosk or sports book to play for fun if you have to wait exceptionally long because an algo bettor is boxing a bunch of picks and taking a long time? The longshots won't pay as much either because an algo will signal a positive EV. They're less likely to buy drinks or racing forms too.
by nkrisc | 2025-05-27 14:26:08+00:00
Doing a proper, unbiased usability study is difficult. I only worked at once company that had a dedicated user research team. The rest the time we designers had to run remote usability tests ourselves, for our own work, which is of course a pretty poor way to get any kind of objective result. No one wants to say, "hey, I tested my design and it sucked hard. Can I have another four weeks to try again?" Furthermore, we often didn't really have much of a say in the fundamentals of the visual appearance, we had to follow the brand standards and GUI pattern library that was chosen by other people. The brand guidelines were often delivered from on high from an outside consultancy, while the GUI pattern library was often produced in-house and robustly tested, but never perfect.
by Der_Einzige | 2025-05-27 14:26:56+00:00
Which is extremely stupid.

I want my math graduates to be skilled at using CAS systems. Yes, even in Calculus 1.

The lack of computer access for teaching math which objectively is supercharged by computation is a massive disservice to millions of individuals who could have used those CAS systems.

I don't want my engineers solving equations by hand. I especially don't want anyone who claims to be a "statistician" to not be skilled in Python (or historically, R)
by desman | 2025-05-27 14:26:56+00:00
yep, I have brick walls downstairs where space is more scarce, the attic has lots of space but also lots of wood lying around.

I guess another possibility is to have the battery pack outside, attached to the brick wall, and ideally away of direct sunlight... but then no wooden roofs. It looks like no DYI is really feasible except maybe a concrete bunker as others have suggested. And even then it's probably uninsurable which is considered a no-no where I live.
by kragen | 2025-05-27 14:27:26+00:00
CL and Scheme mostly aren't that dynamic. CL has functions like map and elt which operate on runtime-determined sequence types, but it's more common to use things like mapcar and nth or aref which aren't polymorphic at all. Arithmetic is pretty polymorphic in both, which can be an efficiency problem.

A lot of things you'd do dynamically in Python (with operator overloading or the like) are done statically (with macros, as you allude) in more traditional Lisps like CL and Scheme.

The core Scheme semantics are pretty small. Common Lisp has significantly hairier core semantics.