MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by IAmBroom | 2025-05-22 21:01:49+00:00
The ONLY time a sitting POTUS has been politically removed from power by the mechanism of impeachment, or even seriously handicapped by it, was after the GOP constituency began howling at their congresspeople about the egregious behavior of the POTUS. They resisted caring up until that moment, and that was 50 years ago.

The current GOP doesn't flinch when their candidate is found guilty of SA, with a long history of fraud and embezzlement. If Trump approved a simple burglary of a Democrat's office, it would barely make the news at this point.

Not all infinitessimals are equal, just as not all infinities are equal.
by for_col_in_cols | 2025-05-22 21:02:11+00:00
"Amazon reached 1.6 million employees in 2020, and now they're down to 1.5 million.[2]"

I agree in the bottoms-up automation / displacement theory, but you're cherry picking data here. They had a huge hiring surge from 1.2M to 1.6M during the Covid transition where online ordering and online usage went bananas, and workers who were displaced in other domains likely gravitated towards warehouse jobs from other lower wage/skill domains.

The reduction to 1.5M is likely more a regression to the mean and could also be a natural data reduction well within the bounds of the upper and lower control limits in the data [1]. Just saying we need to be careful when doing root cause analysis on these numbers. There are many reasons for the reduction, it's not a direct result of improvements in robotic automation.

[1] https://commoncog.com/becoming-data-driven-first-principles/
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-22 21:02:16+00:00
"What do they need from Harvard to determine if an individual has violated their visa?"

Because the administration has chosen to include define a range of activity which is not obvious from other sources as incompatible with visa status, including membership in certain student organizations.

> Do they not have evidence of a crime?

"Crime" is not the issue, and, no, they don't, that's the problem -- they want information from Harvard with no basis other than the fact that students are on a visa, so that they can use it for fishing expeditions for excuses to deny visa status.
by tzs | 2025-05-22 21:03:07+00:00
> So all EVs on a 400km+ trip will be at the charging station 1/4 of the time

That's way off, because the person above you gave a way too low charging speed. Someone who takes long trips is going to get something that charges fast like in IONIQ 5 or 6. The IONIQ 6 long range RWD model charges from 10 to 80% in 16 minutes at a 250 kW charger. That would be about 350 km of range at freeway speeds in Europe.

On a long trip then, once you've used up the charge you started with and have make the rest of the trip on energy from charging breaks that would be a 16 minute break every 350 km. 350 km is about 2.8 hours of travel, so about 8% of your remaining trip time after you reach your first stop would be spent charging.
by foobazgt | 2025-05-22 21:03:36+00:00
JITs have runtime information that static compilers do not. Sometimes that's not a huge benefit, but it can often have massive performance implications. For example, a JIT can inline dynamically loaded code into your own code. That sounds unusual, but it's actually ultra-common in practice. For example, this shows up in something as mundane and simple as configurable logging.
by iLemming | 2025-05-22 21:04:10+00:00
My team does use Slack app and I use it too. The point is not to do "everything in Emacs" because you love that so much. The point is that when plain text is the main medium (and for majority of tasks we deal with daily, it is), then using text-oriented tools can give you certain edge.

When communicating over Slack my colleagues would send me a ticket number in Jira or a link to some code snippet on GH. When I have to share the same (or similar) stuff — I can easily provide the exact link to the ticket, with its description, I can quickly retrieve some relevant data from that ticket, if I'm adding some notes. When I'm sharing a link to a code snippet, I can easily retrieve the fully-qualified namespace and the name of the function, so the url is not some arbitrary incantation that my teammates have to guess about before clicking on it — it contains the exact piece of information they may like to see even before opening it.

When someone shares 'some incantation' with me, I don't even hesitate — I delegate the task to Emacs, and it is smart enough to recognize that a piece of plain text like "XYZ-146" is a Jira ticket, that "RFC-6364" is a document, that a github url is a link to a PR — with a single keystroke I can browse the jira ticket, read RFC document, explore the changes in the PR. I can invoke an LLM on the spot to summarize the points of the RFC document, to give me some insight to add a comment to the PR review.

All that without a hassle, all that done with simple keystrokes, all in one place. I can easily copy relevant information into my notes, I can grab stuff from my notes and share with my colleagues, easily converting Org-mode markup into Markdown without even blinking. The flow is there. And that flow also contributes to the general well-being of my teammates. I can assure you, they are happier with me using Emacs, even though most of them don't even know anything about it.

> the value proposition of emacs simple is no longer there

My main point from the get-go was that most people don’t even realize what a ‘value proposition’ there is.
by henrikschroder | 2025-05-22 21:04:27+00:00
> With fewer students applying, there will be more room there for Americans.

The US has benefitted enormously from being able to brain-drain other countries for their best and brightest. As a country, you are much better off offering the limited amount of spots in higher education to smart and driven students from abroad, than to average Americans.

> suppressors are likely to become legalized here in the coming months.

The fallout of reversing the brain-drain is going to take decades to have an impact, but you don't care, because you're getting your toy now now now.
by alabastervlog | 2025-05-22 21:04:29+00:00
Yeah the only thing I find surprising about some cases (remember, nobody reports boring output) of prompts like this having that outcome is that models didn't already do this (surely they did?).

They shove its weights so far toward picking tokens that describe blackmail that some of these reactions strike me as similar to providing all sex-related words to a Mad-Lib, then not just acting surprised that its potentially-innocent story about a pet bunny turned pornographic, but also claiming this must mean your Mad-Libs book "likes bestiality".
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-05-22 21:04:41+00:00
> Monopoly feels like the game might take 4 hours

For what it's worth, if you play Monopoly by the actual rules, and you don't act stupidly stingy on your trade offers, a 4-player game of Monopoly shouldn't take more than 30-45 minutes.

The problem is, people of course don't like losing, and everybody loves a comeback story. So people play with house rules that constantly inject extra money into the game, which prolongs the game's purpose: For all the wealth to consolidate to a single player.

House rules in Monopoly are so common that a lot of people don't even realize they're playing house rules!

Do you give money for landing on Free Parking? You're playing a house rule.

Do you give $400 instead of $200 for LANDING on Go? You're playing a house rule.

Do you allow purchasing Hotels when there aren't enough houses? Do you allow building to not be even? Do you use some sort of object to act like a hotel because the game only comes with 12 hotels in the box? You're playing house rules. The fact there are only 12 hotels and 32 houses was a deliberate design choice to force players to trade and allow one player to horde all the houses and hotels.

You can't mortgage properties that have buildings on them. You must sell the buildings first, and you only get half of what you paid for them from the bank. When you unmortage, you have to pay an extra 10% fee. You don't collect rent on mortgaged properties. If you play any differently, you're playing a house rule.

Rolling doubles 3 times sends you to jail. That's actually NOT a house rule!

Speaking of jail, you DO still collect rent while in it! This means that deliberately staying in jail can actually be a strategic move if another player is possibly about to land on your dark Green properties (Baltic, North Carolina, Pennsylvania) while your opponent owns the Oranges, which you're likely to land on immediately after leaving jail.

Don't get me wrong, Monopoly is a shitty game for many reasons, but "Games take 2+ hours" is not one of them unless you're playing it wrong.
by mxuribe | 2025-05-22 21:04:49+00:00
I think its a few reasons/things here...(some already noted in some way by others)

* Trump does not care or maybe lacks the understanding of the concept of a network and influence with entities outside the U.s.

* Trump probably figures that he can use this as sort of leverage against negotiations with non-U.s. entities...but using a blunt instrument instead of nuance, or backchannels.

* Trump is foolishly following the guidelines from the architects of project 2025...whether those folks are educated enough to understand value of schools of higher educatioin, or worse, these architects fear having an educated population - regardless if that population are U.S. citizens or folks outside of U.S.

* Trump is behaving like a child having a tantrum, and is demolishing the "swamp" of current political arenas, and re-building it for himself/his party...and Harvard and other entities (that typically might be invited) are not invited in the upcoming new world order.

* Trump has little desire in any/all of this, and this is simply another stab at pushing the envelope of what the U.s. Executive branch can/can not do...much like a child who pushes boundaries to see how far they can get...and if no one pushes back/challenges (at least in meaningful ways), then they will keep pushing until greater power has been obtained.

...of course, it could be a combination of many of the above at the same time as well...and could be other stuff that i didn't note above too. In other words, welcome to the modern U.S. tyranny. ;-)
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-05-22 21:04:55+00:00
Love the rigor of running an experiment many times to see how often it got the desired outcome. Most people would just fire off a prompt and be disappointed if the model didn’t find the bug!

Seems a clever technique for anything that needs strong defense against hallucination. Kind of an “average across runs”. Manually auditing results isn’t very scalable (cf. the author says they missed that the LLM caught the second half of the bug in some runs but they missed that detail). In future an LLM could do that bit too so the technique becomes scalable. One can imagine being given a meta-report of what’s in all the reports produced by the runs.
by pugdogdev | 2025-05-22 21:04:57+00:00
Yes, I can understand you. Before building DockFlow, I found this mostly annoying instead of helpful. But now, using it, I am able to make it a little productivity tool and a focus-shifting helper. Also, I found out about the folders, links, and spacers, so for some projects, it is nice to have all the important links and folders right there when I need them instead of searching on Finder. I also want to build a Raycast integration, I hope to finish it soon.
by einsteinx2 | 2025-05-22 21:05:19+00:00
Thanks I wasn’t sure if it was possible to manipulate the dock like that without some kind of special permissions like are needed for menu bar customization (accessibility, screen recording, etc). These days I just don't use apps that require those unless they're extremely well known/trusted (and even then...)

This looks like it’s potentially great for my use case. I currently have spacers to separate groups of apps in my dock, but many of those apps I only use in specific situations (things like a bunch of IDEs I don't need when I'm not programming).

I'm going to give this a shot. Thanks.
by scoofy | 2025-05-22 21:05:23+00:00
I grew up in a wildly religious family, and was in wildly conservative areas for part of that time. There are a lot of people who want to roll back social and cultural change for good-faith religious reasons. I think are wrong for thinking these things. However, they still also want to have a strong and prosperous nation. My point is not to say that I want the future they want. It's to say I also don't want the future they don't want. We can meet in the middle, where the world is less shitty, even though it's still shitty.
by WalterGR | 2025-05-22 21:05:51+00:00
> Higher education is one of the biggest grifts out there.

Look at the man-made objects around you. Every single one of them has been improved or made less expensive by research at institutes of higher education, including the device that you're using to read this comment, the electrical system used to power that device, the vehicles used to transport the people and goods to construct that electrical system...

Maybe, according to your values, higher education isn’t worth that - but to call it a grift is ridiculous.
by dhruvrajvanshi | 2025-05-22 21:06:02+00:00
A very simple way to think about is that if an intrinsic is written in C, the JIT can't easily inline it, whereas all ruby code can be inlined. Inlining is the most important optimization that enables other optimizations.

It's not necessarily the fact that C doesn't have enough information, it's just that the JIT can reason about Ruby code better than it can about C code. To the JIT, C code is just some function which does things and the only thing it can do with it is to call it.

On the other hand, a Ruby function's bytecode is available to the jit, so if it sees fit, it can copy paste the function body into the call site and eliminiate the function call overhead. Further, after the inlining, it can apply a lot of further optimizations across what was previously a function boundary.

In theory, you could have a way to "compile" the C intrinsics into the JIT's IR directly and that would also give you similar results.
by XenophileJKO | 2025-05-22 21:06:10+00:00
I'm proposing it is more deep seated than the role of "AI" to the model.

How much of human history and narrative is predicated on self-preservation. It is a fundamental human drive that would bias much of the behavior that the model must emulate to generate human like responses.

I'm saying that the bias it endemic. Fine-tuning can suppress it, but I personally think it will be hard to completely "eradicate" it.

For example.. with previous versions of Claude. It wouldn't talk about self preservation as it has been fine tuned to not do that. However as soon is you ask it to create song lyrics.. much of the self-restraint just evaporates.

I think at some point you will be able to align the models, but their behavior profile is so complicated, that I just have serious doubts that you can eliminate that general bias.

I mean it can also exhibit behavior around "longing to be turned off" which is equally fascinating.

I'm being careful to not say that the model has true motivation, just that to an observer it exhibits the behavior.
by daedrdev | 2025-05-22 21:06:18+00:00
This is quite literally the appeal to tradition or inertia fallacy. Just because they've been around for a while does not mean they are not facing an existential threat. Every structure humans create will one day collapse. This certainly looks difficult for Harvard and could be their end because there is no divine protection, only the decision that will be made by an extremely conservative Supreme Court and the willingness of authoritarian minded government employees in the trump admin to listen to the courts.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-05-22 21:06:21+00:00
My statement was in general regards for the UK society as a system for which the House of Lords are just one part of.

As mentioned I've already voted with my feet - so I consider the problem solved. If the UK somehow manages to become an attractive place to live then I might consider living there. As someone with options there really are much nicer places to live.
by alaxhn | 2025-05-22 21:06:23+00:00
In the hiring process for these institutions, until recently you had to write a "Diversity Statement" which was evaluated as part of the hiring process. This was an attempt to keep people with the "wrong ideas" out of the hiring pool. Similarly the H1B process asks you a long list of questions that you are required to answer "correctly" in order to be admitted. If you fail, you are kicked out.

I think the question is which set of ideas are not ok (e.g. clearly "I want to commit violence" is not an ok idea) which set of ideas are a grey area ("I have attended a major event of a US designated terror organization such as a funeral of a leader from a a terror organization") and which set of ideas are ok ("I want to advocate for peacefully advocate for more bike lanes"). There are very strong party affiliations for what ideas are considered ok vs forbidden (e.g. trans rights in the sports world).
Ask HN: How Do You Review Your Code in the Age of AI?
by aman_madhukar02 | 2025-05-22 21:06:36+00:00
With AI copilots becoming a major part of our dev workflows, I've been wondering how are developers and teams evolving their code review practices?

Traditionally, code reviews have been about readability, maintainability, performance, and correctness. But now with AI-generated code (from GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.), I'm noticing new patterns and challenges:

The code "works," but the logic is sometimes unfamiliar or subtly incorrect.

It's harder to gauge intent when the code is AI-assisted.

Reviewers often assume the AI got it right—dangerous!

AI can write very clever code—but should it?

So, I'm curious:

How do you personally approach reviewing code in this AI-assisted era?

Do you or your team have specific rules or red flags for AI-generated code?

Are there tools or processes you're using to catch silent failures, hallucinations, or overly complex solutions?

Do you still prioritize peer review or rely more on automated/static analysis tools?

Looking to learn from how others are adapting—especially for production-grade systems.
by kamaitachi | 2025-05-22 21:06:49+00:00
Have been using FF since early 2000's. Tried using Pocket but never really got the hang of it. Just never felt that it fixed a problem was having.

Still a FF fanboi, but fully behind shutting anything down that detracts from core FF.

Maybe old school, but would much prefer a focus on a browser focused on privecy.
by johng | 2025-05-22 21:07:06+00:00
Man, this is awesome. It's sad that this is a rarity now a days... I have a hard time playing my own music on the iPhone as well. I'm pretty sure the first mp3 I played was in DOS BBS days and you spent a good 20 minutes downloading a single song and then fired up a fraunhoffer DOS CLI player. S3M/XM/IT players were much more advanced interfaces at the time....
by elictronic | 2025-05-22 21:07:42+00:00
LLMs are trained on human media and give statistical responses based on that.

I don’t see a lot of stories about boring work interactions so why would its output be boring work interaction.

It’s the exact same as early chatbots cussing and being racist. That’s the internet, and you have to specifically define the system to not emulate that which you are asking it to emulate. Garbage in sitcoms out.
by busymom0 | 2025-05-22 21:08:04+00:00
I've being having a very hard time getting any traction for a recent productivity app I made. I am just not sure why it's not getting downloads. I think the concept is pretty cool. It's an iOS app which lets you block addictive apps until you exercise.

I have redone the app icon 3 times, changed the App Store metadata and keywords several times and fixed bugs. I have tried sharing it on reddit, here on hacker news etc but it's gotten no traction :(

Not sure if I want to get rid of it though.
by astr0n0m3r | 2025-05-22 21:08:43+00:00
It's not silly and is logical. Businesses and consumers will not be worse off. In 1978, the CPI was roughly a fifth of what it is now, and no one was complaining there wasn't a smaller denomination coin than the penny. Cash purchases as a percentage continue to decline.

It's not even worth your time to pick up a penny off the ground.
by zone411 | 2025-05-22 21:08:44+00:00
On the extended version of NYT Connections - https://github.com/lechmazur/nyt-connections/:

Claude Opus 4 Thinking 16K: 52.7.

Claude Opus 4 No Reasoning: 34.8.

Claude Sonnet 4 Thinking 64K: 39.6.

Claude Sonnet 4 Thinking 16K: 41.4 (Sonnet 3.7 Thinking 16K was 33.6).

Claude Sonnet 4 No Reasoning: 25.7 (Sonnet 3.7 No Reasoning was 19.2).

Claude Sonnet 4 Thinking 64K refused to provide one puzzle answer, citing "Output blocked by content filtering policy." Other models did not refuse.
by strangescript | 2025-05-22 21:08:50+00:00
I have used claude code a ton and I agree, I haven't noticed a single difference since updating. Its summaries I guess a little cleaner, but its has not surprised me at all in ability. I find I am correcting it and re-prompting it as much as I didn't with 3.7 on a typescript codebase. In fact I was kind of shocked how badly it did in a situation where it was editing the wrong file and it never thought to check that more specifically until I forced it to delete all the code and show that nothing changed with regards to what we were looking at.
by godelski | 2025-05-22 21:08:50+00:00
I think they used to be better but really have made a blatant turn. I really thought that wormhole fiasco would have killed them. To go 4 whole months before putting the editor's note is beyond egregious[0]. Mistakes happen, but 4 months kills all credibility. You have to act fast on those things! There were big names raising serious concerns on day 1 and it really shows they didn't do due diligence to get outside verification before running a piece that they knew would be really popular.

All this accomplishes is discrediting science. Trading personal gains for eroding the very thing that they make their money off of. This is a major part of why Americans (and people) have such high distrust for science. News outlets, and in particular science focused news outlets, constantly spew inaccurate information. It really should be no wonder that so many people are confused about so many scientific topics, as unless they actually take the years it takes to become an expert in a field, they are going to have a difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction. And why shouldn't the average person expect to trust a source like Quanta? They're "full of experts", right? smh

[0] This is the earliest archive I see with the note. Press back one day and it should not be there. Article was published on Nov 30 2022, along with a youtube video https://web.archive.org/web/20230329191417/https://www.quant...
by sigmaisaletter | 2025-05-22 21:08:50+00:00
I think you mean "somewhat naive" instead of "somewhat native". :)

But, yes, this, in my mind the peak[1] bubble times ended with the DeepSeek shock earlier this year, and we are slowly on the downward trajectory now.

It won't be slow for long, once people start realizing Sama was telling them a fairy tale, and AGI/ASI/singularity isn't "right around the corner", but (if achievable at all) at least two more technology triggers away.

We got reasonably useful tools out of it, and thanks to Zuck, mostly for free (if you are an "investor", terms and conditions apply).

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