MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
DockIt – Automatically organize your macOS Dock based on real app usage
by olyskal | 2025-05-04 21:50:32+00:00
DockIt is a macOS utility that keeps your Dock clean, focused and personalized. Create multiple profiles like Work, Study or Design and DockIt will automatically adjust your Dock based on how often or how long you use each app. You can also disable automatic reordering and manage everything manually if you prefer. The Smart Assistant suggests switching profiles when you're done using certain apps like Logic or Final Cut, helping you stay in flow without distractions.

Why we built it? The macOS Dock is powerful but often becomes cluttered and static. We built DockIt to give users dynamic control over their workspace, helping them stay organized and focused with minimal effort. Key Features Auto-reorder apps by activation count or usage duration Smart Assistant to suggest profile changes contextually Manual profile support for full control Profile-based Dock configurations (Work, Focus, etc.) Optional notifications when the Dock updates Join the community

We are building DockIt with real users and would love your feedback. Join the Discord to participate, share ideas and get early updates: https://discord.gg/BZa2EZFvVQ

Download

DockIt is currently in open beta and free to use. Get the latest version in the downloads channel on our Discord. We are listening We are looking for early feedback to shape the next versions of DockIt. Tell us what works, what doesn't and what would improve your experience on macOS.
by silcoon | 2025-05-04 21:51:21+00:00
> false premises, false conclusions, and bad good ideas in-between.

False constructive criticism (since you've spammed your stuff 5 times), and bad (hostile) behavior which, I found, it's way more common in the Common Lisp community than in other languages.

I just gave my experience of testing the creation of a Common Lisp web app using different libraries, and instead of a guide of >20 pages, I condensed a bit of code in a single article. I could not find a quick tutorial for Caveman so I decided to write a short one. Is it such an issue?

> Burn this article with fire ;)

You probably got triggered for my conclusions but I still stand for it. I really like Common Lisp and I'm a Lisp fan in general, but to write generic modern web app I think there are languages that fit better. Most of the web app they would not benefit from having such a powerful language as Common Lisp in the back-ent, I would even think it can be harmful in some cases when you need to hire, and I say this having worked with Lisp dialect in production.
by ergsef | 2025-05-04 21:51:29+00:00
> You wait until the enemy starts charging with infantry and cavalry so they're not huddling under shields

Why wait for a specific command? It sounds like as an archer maybe you could try and hit a few far-off enemies whenever you wanted. There will be a critical period when most of the arrows will be released and be most effective, but the primary limiting factor is the archer's fatigue level. The article makes it clear there's not really a shortage of arrows.

So it's probably more like "people start talking, some arrows start flying, as the enemies get closer more arrows start flying". Which is pretty different from a coordinated volley.
by wisty | 2025-05-04 21:51:31+00:00
I think you're being charitable here, I suspect a lot of people with PhDs in education who cited Mind and Society in their thesis haven't even read it, let alone technical reports.

And if you read what I said, I wasn't having a go at Vygotsky. I was having a go at most of the people who cite him (which implies they read his work, but I often suspect they didn't).

If you want to disagree with me, fine, but I'm saying that teaching is largely taught in academia in a kind of continental philosophy approach in the anglosphere, which means that Vygotsky is largely treated in academia as fodder for that.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-05-04 21:52:43+00:00
LLMs are absolutely biased

They are biased by the training dataset, which probably also reflects the biases of the people who select the training dataset

They are biased by the system prompts that are embedded into every request to keep them on the rails

They are even biased by the prompt that you write into them, which can lead them to incorrect conclusions if you design the prompt to lead them to it

I think it is a very careless mistake to think of LLMs as unbiased or neutral in any way
by palata | 2025-05-04 21:52:43+00:00
> would you really rather read all the prompts and drafts instead of the final version?

I think you missed the point of the article. They did not mean it literally: it's a way to say that they are interested in what you have to say.

And that is the point that is extremely difficult to make students understand. When a teacher asks a student to write about a historical event, it's not just some kind of ceremony on the way to a degree. The end goal is to make the student improve in a number of skills: gathering information, making sense of it, absorbing it, being critical about what they read, eventually building an opinion about it.

When you say "I use an LLM to dump my thoughts and get help organising them", what you say is that you are not interested in improving your ability to actually absorb information. To me, it says that you are not interested in becoming interesting. I would think that it is a maturity issue: some day you will understand.

And that's what the article says: I am interested in hearing what you have to say about a topic that you care about. I am not interested into anything you can do to pretend that you care or know about it. If you can't organise your thoughts yourself, I don't believe that you have reached a point where you are interesting. Not that you will never get there; it just takes practice. But if you don't practice (and use LLMs instead), my concern is that you will never become interesting. This time is wasted, I don't want to read what your LLM generated from that stuff you didn't care to absorb in the first place.
by lelanthran | 2025-05-04 21:53:44+00:00
> 10s is painful. A server-rendered app should be able to deliver that data, already rendered, in closer to a fifth of a second.

How do you know how large the dataset is? All you know from my post is that a dataset that takes 10s to download (I'm indicating the size of it here!) takes under a second to filter and sort.

My point is that if your client-code is taking long to filter and sort, then your dataset is already so large that the user has been waiting a long time for it already; they already know that this dataset takes time.

FWIW, the data is coming in as CSV, compressed, so it's as small as possible. It's not limited by the server. Having it rendered by the server will increase the payload substantially.
by roarcher | 2025-05-04 21:54:07+00:00
Recently I wasted half a day trying to make sense of story requirements given to me by a BA that were contradictory and far more elaborate than we had previously discussed. When I finally got ahold of him he confessed that he had run the actual requirements through ChatGPT and "didn't have time to proofread the results". Absolutely infuriating.
by louthy | 2025-05-04 21:54:22+00:00
> Rough like the roughest hangover you can have

I’ve had one for an operation on a broken jaw, just didn’t think it was particularly rough. Of course it takes time to come round and be clear headed, but the OP kinda implied serious physical problems with “dangerous and very rough on you”. Maybe I just misunderstood what they were saying, but I thought they meant rough as in long lasting damage (which I didn’t think was the case), not temporary discomfort.

Your situation obviously isn’t ideal, but doesn’t have the same implication.

> I always wonder what was that drug that produce so weird half-wake dreams

The sibling comment here mentions Ketamine, which is possible, but if they’re giving that to you intravenously then all perception of time and space will be warped. It’s extreme. So wild dreams is one thing, questioning what is even real is more like ketamine.

It is after effect free though and doesn’t last long, so once stopped you can be over it within the hour. It also has antidepressant effects afterwards.
by brnaftr361 | 2025-05-04 21:54:28+00:00
I've played for many years including CS1.6, CS:S, GO, and 2. I regularly snoop profiles and overwhelmingly there are accounts with 1 game, all F2P games, short account lives, low hours (CS2, GO + account), low or no commendations, low match count, blocked stat tracking... Slews of markers that these are less-than-legit, either smurfing (IMO a form of cheating) or outright hacking. Then they coincidentally overperform for their respective rank. That's without mentioning coming across numerous individuals with [sometimes multiple] bans recorded on their accounts.

My account is 20 years old. And has several games with hundreds of hours including a couple of perfect games, not to mention a hundred or more games. Also phone verified. I don't expect everyone to have similar accounts, but it's seldom I'm matched against anything even remotely similar, say 5 year old accounts with similar playtimes in non-F2P games, though many profiles are private, which itself is - I think - also suspicious since virtually everyone leverages aliases on Steam so I can't really imagine a case for this other than obscuration, though I'm certain some people do it for privacy reasons I expect that rationale is rare.

Beyond that I would say there are a lot of suspicious individuals I've been matched against in both premier and comp . Regardless of whether or not they're smurfs it makes MM obnoxious if only because you end up matched against people who rage and ruin 45m-1h of your time by competing illicitly.

The MM algo is also just shit without these considerations lumped on top of it. I regularly play with my friends who rank lower and that draws my rank down so we get matched in low ranks, resulting in violent pubstomping. Of course I play on my only account, so I'm sure I get hackusated a lot, which would ostensibly get my trust factor drug through the mud. I suppose that's a solid incentive for smurfing on its own, especially since the system is opaque.

It's all pretty bad, frankly. Faceit is hardly better, a lot of the community is pretty toxic and obnoxious salty tryhard metabangers that aren't fun to play with.
by pvg | 2025-05-04 21:54:54+00:00
Not really, no. Also they were perfectly aware of the destructive potential of really big bombs. This risk of increasingly big weapons that can destroy civilization were completely obvious, regardless of their mechanism of operation.

Your analogy doesn't hold up because weapons were real, mass mobilization conflict between industrial societies was real. Plus you've now switched it around - first it was people who warned against the risks of nuclear war (effectively everyone), now it's people who didn't believe nuclear weapons were possible in 1940 (effectively nobody), etc. There has to be more to an argument than a mention of turkeys and rhetorical swerves.
by YmiYugy | 2025-05-04 21:55:08+00:00
Hate the game not the player. For the moment we continue to live in a world where the form and tone of communication matters and where foregoing the use of AI tools can put you at a disadvantage. There are countless homework assignments where teachers will give better grades to LLM outputs. An LLM can quickly generate targeted cover letters dramatically increasing efficiency while job hunting. Getting a paper accepted requires you to adhere to an academic writing style. LLMs can get you there. Maybe society just needs a few more years to adjust and shift expectations. In the meantime you should probably continue to use AI.
by donnachangstein | 2025-05-04 21:55:24+00:00
The correct answer is no one outside US Government IT knows for sure what is or isn't approved per their own rules. Every article (and comments therein) are just speculation and people trying to confirm their own biases, desperately looking for something to blame someone for, to produce more rage-bait and thus feed more ad clicks.

Every single article is written with the presumption that there are no actual IT people in the White House, that someone wheeled in a Starlink dish on a dessert cart in the yard which is somehow running the entire government. It's silly and ridiculous.
by palata | 2025-05-04 21:56:16+00:00
> Most people do view obtaining a degree as just a hurdle to getting a decent job, that’s just the economics of it.

Because those who recruit based on the degree aren't worth more than those who get a degree by using LLMs.

Maybe it will force a big change in the way students are graded. Maybe, after they have handed in their essay, the teacher should just have a discussion about it, to see how much they actually absorbed from the topic.

Or not, and LLMs will just make everything worse. That's more likely IMO.
by xg15 | 2025-05-04 21:56:31+00:00
> Make virtues of irrational attachment, cultivated ignorance, and stubborn loyalty. The day belongs to those who master the new tools for building, but who preserve in their hearts a secret garden of earnest loves untrammeled by the swarm. ♥

How to make a closing paragraph that will make the reader feel "Yes! I'm special! I'm not one of them! There is still hope for me!" - while actually applying to absolutely everyone...
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-05-04 21:56:38+00:00
Onshape is amazing. The learning curve is much more forgiving than other software while still being a feature-rich, optionally constraint-based and parametrizable CAD application. It works on any OS, even on a laptop with an iGPU, a Chromebook, and for basic stuff like exporting a part for printing, a phone.

Consider signing up via your favorite YouTuber's sponsorship link to support them.

Downsides are that the CAM plugin is paid-only (irrelevant for 3D printing) and you're obviously trapping yourself in a commercial, proprietary walled garden that might start charging subscription fees or otherwise rug-pull you once it gets popular enough. I've decided that the ease of use benefit is high enough to warrant the risk - I'd rather risk not being able to edit my models in the future than not creating them in the first place because the alternative software is too painful to use.

It's helpful to understand how the software works, because it's different from what you might have experienced from other software: It essentially stores operations, like "start with this sketch, then extrude this part of it to a height of 10 mm, then add a fillet". You can go back and edit previous steps and the following steps will be directly re-applied.

In sketch mode, you can just draw, but you can also add arbitrary constraints, e.g. "these points have to be exactly 3 cm away" and it will adjust your sketch to match the (new) constraints. This makes it really easy to change some aspect of the part later. This is common in CAD software, although OnShape's implementation seems more intuitive to me than e.g. Fusion 360.

If you want to do actual 3D CAM (for CNC machining), Fusion360 seems to be the only free option (not available for Linux).

In general, with all CAD software, the common "just poke at it until you figure out how it works" approach doesn't work well, although once you've understood the basic concepts that I've explained above and know some CAD terms/concepts like creating 3D parts by extruding or rotating 2d drawings, Onshape will mostly let you get away with that approach. You probably should still watch tutorials before you start.
by natebc | 2025-05-04 21:57:05+00:00
Honestly I think we'll get back there. I remember ... fondly(?) exams from my history courses in undergrad in the mid 90s. 3-4 questions, 3 hours, anything less than what would amount to a pretty decent length and moderately thorough term paper would fail and have to be made up with an absolutely BRUTAL multiple choice + fill in the blank exam at the end of the term.

Those classes are what taught me how to study and really internalize the material. Helped me so much later in college too. I really can't imagine how kids these days are doing it.
by imhoguy | 2025-05-04 21:57:32+00:00
Exactly it is a tool which needs skill to use. I would add extra use of mine:

- To "Translate to language XYZ", and that is not sometimes strightforward and needs iterating like "Translate to language <LANGUAGE> used by <PERSON ROLE> living in <CITY>" and so on.

And the author is right, I use it as 2nd-language user, thus LLM produces better text than myself. However I am not going to share the prompt as it is useless (foreign language) and too messy (bits of draft text) to the reader. I would compare it to passing a book draft thru editor and translator.
by kergonath | 2025-05-04 21:57:36+00:00
> But it still seems perfectly reasonable to me. You wait until the enemy starts charging with infantry and cavalry so they're not huddling under shields, the general makes a visible signal, and all the archers immediately draw at the same time and let forth a single volley at the ideal moment for the volley to meet the enemy. Of course it's not going to "mow down" the enemy -- that's a strawman -- but the article makes clear all the significant damage it does cause.

It’s not perfectly reasonable at all. When the enemy is charging, what you want is maximum efficiency, which means a rate of shooting as high as possible, which means everyone shoots as soon as they are ready, which precludes synchronisation.

When the enemy is not charging and just manoeuvring, volleys are counter-productive because you just give them some time to hide behind their shields and move between volleys.

I can imagine maybe one time when such tactics could work, it’s in an ambush. But then it’s not large scale and it is quite difficult to pull it off, because you need to synchronise the archers without giving away their presence. And it’s quite far from the autor’s pet peeve, which was archers fighting like they had guns in big battles.

> upon command, they would draw and fire in a single motion.

You cannot really do that without extensive drills that were not really a thing in pre-modern armies. There are too many variations in individual strength, not really standardised equipment, and different people behaving differently. Even if you take 10 people, you would not get synchronised arrows if you did that.

> Am I missing something here?

Why would they? What advantage would they gain doing so? Particularly when doing it more naturally is more efficient and effective (not going to repeat the story’s argument, but there are several).
by Ferret7446 | 2025-05-04 21:57:56+00:00
I don't see what's so beneficial about a volley. Concentrating the arrows allows the opposing force to ready their shields which renders the volley less effective, and advance in between volleys. It's better to rain arrows continuously which prevents the opposing force from defending in any capacity without stopping their advance entirely.

Arrows are not more effective (e.g. armor penetration) in a volley, and the psychological effect is also less for volleys I would argue: you know a volley is coming, duck and cover, and afterwards it's clear, vs a continuous rain where you never know when an arrow is headed toward you specifically.
by gnabgib | 2025-05-04 21:58:07+00:00
Related:

REAL-ID FAQ: What will happen at US airports on May 7, 2025? (6 points, 12 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43766993

Flying somewhere? You may finally need that Real ID (23 points, 24 days ago, 75 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43643877

The ID deadline is looming and many travelers are scrambling and confused (7 points, 27 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43616143
by ujkhsjkdhf234 | 2025-05-04 21:58:14+00:00
This is what has happened although I'm not sure it has manifested in the way the author believes or wants. What the right has done, for example, is create supporters that irrationally attach their sense of being to them and deny or block out anything that goes against what they are told to believe. Both stories they present at the beginning can be true at the same time.
by ipv6ipv4 | 2025-05-04 21:59:20+00:00
It was incontrovertibly approved as it is only installable via MDM.

A likely explanation is that the communications director (or the people informing her) wouldn’t know to distinguish between Signal the app, and a Signal compatible app that is nearly indistinguishable from Signal. A lot like Kleenex is a common term for tissue paper regardless of brand.

When the leak was first revealed, there was loud speculation about the legality of government chat messages being set to auto-delete. This additional revelation, about the use of TeleMessage, shows that someone with a security background has actually thought about these things. It makes perfect security sense to archive messages somewhere secure, off phone, for record keeping compliance while ensuring that relatively vulnerable phones don’t retain messages for very long. It’s also an easy explanation for why such an app was created in the first place. There is an obvious market for it.
by musicale | 2025-05-04 21:59:54+00:00
> comprehensive documentation

Documentation is an interesting use case. There are various kinds of documentation (reference, tutorial, architecture, etc.) and LLMs might be useful for things like

- repetitive formatting and summarization of APIs for reference

- tutorials which repeat the same information verbosely in an additive, logical sequence (though probably a human would be better)

- sample code (though human-written would probably be better)

The tasks that I expect might work well involve repetitive reformatting, repetitive expansion, and reduction.

I think they also might be useful for systems analysis, boiling down a large code base into various kinds of summaries and diagrams to describe data flow, computational structure, signaling, etc.

Still, there is probably no substitute for a Caroline Rose[1] type tech writer who carefully thinks about each API call and uses that understanding to identify design flaws.

[1] https://folklore.org/Inside_Macintosh.html?sort=date
by MarcoDewey | 2025-05-04 22:01:32+00:00
You are correct that the notion of LLMs being completely unbiased or neutral does not make sense due to how they are trained. Perhaps my title is even misleading if taken at face value.

When I talk about "unbiased oracles" I am speaking in the context of black box testing. I'm not suggesting they are free from all forms of bias. Instead, the key distinction I'm trying to draw is their lack of implementation-level bias towards the specific code they are testing.
by KallDrexx | 2025-05-04 22:01:36+00:00
Also, I would point out that there are cases where it doesn't change significant amount of the language or hamper things.

The transpiler also works for Linux eBPF kernel side applications without unsafe pointers and other odd things I need to do for SNES.

Since you can have methods on c# struct instances, things can still work pretty idiomatically.

You also do have statically sized arrays, or heap allocated arrays (the latter is only supported if host C application passes it in before hand, and is responsible for free ing it).
by RicoElectrico | 2025-05-04 22:02:22+00:00
> Either the article is so vapid that a summary provides all of its value, in which case, it does not merit the engagement of a comment, or it demands a real reading by a real human for comprehension, in which case the summary is pointless.

There's so much bad writing of valuable information out there. The major sins being: burying the lede, no or poor sectioning, and just generally verbose.

In some cases, like in EULAs and patents that's intentional.