MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by freedomben | 2025-05-29 17:52:15+00:00
FWIW I don't think you were being elitist at all. In fact I think you've come off as very humble and full of genuine care and interest for your fellow humans. Our world could use a whole lot more of that from believer and non-believer alike.

I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times though, and nothing makes me believe the Bible less than actually reading and studying the Bible. The book of Job alone was pretty hard to reconcile, but even just harmonizing the four gospels on the important details of Jesus life and crucifixion is very, very difficult (or even impossible depending on who you talk to). I won't even get into Song of Solomon :-D

Honestly if you want people to find faith, I wouldn't recommend reading the Bible. I would recommend a mix of the New Testament (minus the Book of Revelation) plus Church attendance.
by kstrauser | 2025-05-29 17:52:30+00:00
> My smartphone is probably faster than most computers of that era.

That's an understatement. With the usual caveats that benchmarks lie and all that, here's a pretty fast server I had in 2008 or so vs a modern iPhone[0]. The single core scores are 430 and 3427 respectively, and multi-core scores are 745 vs 8494. The phone wipes the floor with the server on normal tasks. On things that use huge amounts of FLOPS like object detection, it's just about 100x faster.

In addition, the entire A18 SoC uses around 10W max, vs the E8400 burning 65W by itself.

If you want to go back to exactly 20 years ago, there's a Pentium 4 vs an iPhone.[1] It had single/multi-core performance of 185/216 at 85W (by itself, not including chipset and RAM), and the phone runs math stuff around 500x faster.

Yes. Your smartphone is many times faster than most computers of that era.

[0] https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/12190780?baseli...

[1]
by aidenn0 | 2025-05-29 17:52:52+00:00
> As an example, let's say you use ZII and allocate 100 objects in a single allocation

If you want to do that you can always use a nullable type. You can always assign it to a non-nullable type after initialization if you plan on using the aggregate a lot.

Usually you provide a vector type though, which has an underlying nullable array, but maintains a fill-index such that for all i < fill-index it the value is initialized, and then you have two indexing operations; one which returns a nullable type and the other which bounds-checks and returns a non-nullable type.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-05-29 17:53:28+00:00
> Here's a kid out hoeing rows for corn. He sees someone planting with a tractor, and decides that's the way to go. Someone tells him, "If you get a tractor, you'll never develop the muscles that would make you really great at hoeing

In this example the idea that losing the muscles that make you great at hoeing" seems kind of like a silly thing to worry about

But I think there's a second order effect here. The kid gets a job driving the tractor instead. He spends his days seated instead of working. His lifestyle is more sedentary. He works just as many hours as before, and he makes about the same as he did before, so he doesn't really see much benefit from the increased productivity of the tractor.

However now he's gaining weight from being more sedentary, losing muscle from not moving his body, developing lower back problems from being seated all day, developing hearing loss from the noisy machinery. His quality of life is now lower, right?

Edit: Yes, there are also health problems from working hard moving dirt all day. You can overwork yourself, no question. It's hard on your body, being in the sun all day is bad for you.

I would argue it's still objectively a physically healthier lifestyle than driving a tractor for hours though.

Edit 2: my point is that I think after driving a tractor for a while, the kid would really struggle to go hoe by hand like he used to, if he ever needed to
by UncleOxidant | 2025-05-29 17:53:38+00:00
There's some whistling past the graveyard in these comments. "You still need humans for the social element...", "LLMs are bad at debugging", "LLMs lead you astray". And yeah, there's lots of truth in those assertions, but since I started playing with LLMs to generate code a couple of years ago they've made huge strides. I suspect that over the next couple of years the improvements won't be quite as large (Pareto Principle), but I do expect we'll still see some improvement.

Was on r/fpga recently and mentioned that I had had a lot of success recently in getting LLMs to code up first-cut testbenches that allow you to simulate your FPGA/HDL design a lot quicker than if you were to write those testbenches yourself and my comment was met with lots of derision. But they hadn't even given it a try to form their conclusion that it just couldn't work.
by klntsky | 2025-05-29 17:53:49+00:00
I would argue that they are never led astray by chatting, but rather by accepting the projection of their own prompt passed through the model as some kind of truth.

When talking with reasonable people, they have an intuition of what you want even if you don't say it, because there is a lot of non-verbal context. LLMs lack the ability to understand the person, but behave as if they had it.
by whilenot-dev | 2025-05-29 17:53:56+00:00
> doesn't scale when hiring 10+ engineers monthly

This got strong "rise and grind guys thinking about life hack" vibes pretty quickly. Be serious, who's hiring at that rate currently?!

I see whiteboard interviews as an answer to disputes over opinionated tooling. It's just a pen, a blank canvas, and natural language to communicate. There's probably just pseudocode, no IDEs and zero runtimes.

Bringing "AI teammates" into the mix reintroduces some disputes: Candidates would lack the experience to get around your tool and trigger the right responses. Different LLMs have different "characters". As an engineer you'd want to pick the best tool for the job, and no engineer would like be stuck with your choice. It's usually an effort to figure out and setup such a tool for each distinct project.

Besides that, even technical interviews have the social component to rule out any "cultural" differences within the team. I really doubt that good technical leaders could take that much value out of an AI assessment to just skip any in-person step of the interview.
by iLemming | 2025-05-29 17:54:11+00:00
This irrational anger toward a free tool that no one forces you to use (I can't imagine any team mandating Emacs), and which is neither rigid nor limited in extensibility, suggests something deeper at play. Perhaps it reflects an internal struggle or penitence over one's inability to grasp it?

Comprehending Emacs is a challenging journey that demands time, patience, and dedication. Yet why would anyone despise Emacs after spending time with it? It's like hating the mere existence of motorcycles after failing to learn how to ride one.
by lerno | 2025-05-29 17:54:22+00:00
All macros are hygienic. However, you can pass in a lazy expression which then is evaluated in its original context.

The macro cannot insert variables into the caller scope, nor cause the function to return. Mostly it's similar to a static inline function with optionally polymorphic arguments. But it can do some more things as well, but nothing violating hygiene.
by soared | 2025-05-29 17:54:51+00:00
Especially good callout in the context of Jesus returning. It would look very different today, but there was one who was pretty damn close to pulling it off - would be curious when poly market calls the bet. Chatgpt summary -

* Sabbatai Zevi (17th century): One of the most famous false Jewish Messiahs. He gained a massive following across the Jewish world. However, when faced with the Ottoman Sultan's choice between conversion to Islam or death, he converted. This conversion was a devastating blow to his followers and essentially a public "recantation" of his messianic claim, though not necessarily an admission of it being a lie on his part as much as a desperate act to save his life. Many of his followers were deeply disillusioned, while others continued to believe in him even after his conversion, developing complex theological explanations for his actions.
by AlotOfReading | 2025-05-29 17:54:58+00:00
Unrelated to the LLM discussion, but a hash function function is the wrong construction for the accumulator solution. The hashing part increases the probability that A and B have a collision that leads to a false negative here. Instead, you want a random invertible mapping, which guarantees that no two pointers will "hash" to the same value, while distributing the bits. Splitmix64 is a nice one, and I believe the murmurhash3 finalizer is invertible, as well as some of the xorshift RNGs if you avoid the degenerate zero cycle.
by theGeatZhopa | 2025-05-29 17:55:00+00:00
that clears up my understanding. Thank you very much!

I already thought about https://codemap4ai.com/ which, in my understanding, creates something similar to the cursor.rules file that defines project structure, etc.. and I can use this then. But it still doesn't solve the problem of a good prompt! Which of course can be achieved with LLMs themselves.

Ok, I'll lock up my door and throw the key out of my window with a written notice on it "if you find it, use it in three weeks" and during the three weeks I do excessive talking about some ideas to Claude and hope to finish a "big beautiful prompt" for the further actions ... :)

Thank you very much for taking the time!
by nickpsecurity | 2025-05-29 17:55:18+00:00
GotQuestions often has Biblical answers to common questions. It has supporting data for this one:

https://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-government.html

I'll also add that the Bible teaches that Satan puts thoughts in people's heads, including rulers and business elites, to cause them to pr p mote his goals. If true, we will repeatedly see the same ideas pop up that the Bible warns about pushed top-down in many cultures. We'll also see them do damage over time.

So, in Revelation, it's a push for world governemnt, a single currency, and ability of governments to dictate both commerce and religion (esp universalism). In Old Testament, the pagans push subjectivism (eg polytheism/atheism), sexual immorality (esp homosexuality), exploitation of the poor, arrogant attitudes, violence, and sacrificing infants for more sex or money.

If we see these trends, we're to oppose them because God promises to punish them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Historical data confirms that most countries that did such things were destroyed in time. Often from the activities driven by their cultures. That's also why we not only share Christ and His Word but promote character education and righteous government.

(Note: Christians being mere humans beings redeemed from sin, but with a human nature, means they will often fall short of the above goals in politics and life in general. Sadly. Doesn't make it any less true, though.)
by Mariefay | 2025-05-29 17:55:21+00:00
Thanks for sharing that list Nat! I'll have a proper read through it today, but I have already spotted a few entries that I want to dig into!!

> I want to understand why we still have physical monitors and look for ways to replace them. -> This is also a topic I have been interested in, but I have never had a chance to try the latest products myself, mostly due to the costs and the fact that I am not based in the US. Did you try any yourself?

I am in the same boat for space and med tech. I do have a degree in physics, in which I did some quantum physics and quantum computing basics. I really enjoyed it, back then, and have been keeping an eye on the latest advancements since then, but haven't dug in too much. Might be a good time to do so!
by vouaobrasil | 2025-05-29 17:56:48+00:00
Personally, I am. Lots of unusual skills I have, have already been taken by AI. That's not to say I think I'm in trouble, but I think it's sad I can't apply some of these skills that I learned just a couple of years ago like audio editing because AI does it now. Neither do I want to work as an AI operator, which I find boring and depressing. So, I've just moved onto something else, but it's still discouraging.

Also, so many people said the same thing about chess when the first chess programs came out. "It will never beat an international master." Then, "it will never beat a grandmaster." And Kasparov said, "it would never beat me or Karpov."

Look where we are today. Can humanity adapt? Yes, probably. But that new world IMO is worse than it is today, rather lacking in dignity I'd say.
by ruune | 2025-05-29 17:57:04+00:00
Don't they use https://g.co now? Or are there still new internal goo.gl links created?

Edit: Google is using a g.co link on the "Your device is booting another OS" screen that appears when booting up my Pixel running GrapheneOS. Will be awkward when they kill that service and the hard coded link in the phones bios is just dead
by somenameforme | 2025-05-29 17:57:08+00:00
I'd challenge your position with a simple thought experiment. You're given a device with a button. When you push that button a random person you don't know will be killed. In exchange you'll receive $1 million in completely clean money, and nobody will ever know you pushed the button or how many times you pushed it.

So how many times would you push it? Such is our character that asking how many times you'd push it is far more interesting than asking if you'd push it. And asking how many times you'd push it also gets rid of the marginal utility argument, and just to the dirty self centered core of humanity.

People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards. There will undoubtedly be a guy who pushes it thousands of times, and then donates a fraction of it to charity, convincing himself that he's actually saved lives on net. That is humanity in a nutshell.
by Windchaser | 2025-05-29 17:57:11+00:00
> Why are we homo sapiens self-aware? ... We can imagine that it’s possible to have an AGI that is just software but there’s no existence proof.

Self-awareness and embodiment are pretty different, and you could hypothetically be self-aware without having a mobile, physical body with physical senses. E.g., imagine an AGI that could exchange messages on the internet, that had consciousness and internal narrative, even an ability to "see" digital pictures, but no actual camera or microphone or touch sensors located in a physical location in the real world. Is there any contradiction there?

> We have no example of sapience or general intelligence that is divorced from being good at the things the animal body host needs to do.

Historically, sure. But isn't that just the result of evolution? Cognition is biologically expensive, so of course it's normally directed towards survival or reproductive needs. The fact that evolution has normally done things a

And it's not even fully true that intelligence is always directed towards what the body needs. Just like some birds have extravagant displays of color (a 'waste of calories'), we have plenty of examples in humans of intelligence that's not directed towards what the animal body host needs. Think of men who collect D&D or Star Trek figurines, or who can list off sports stats for dozens of athletes. But these are in environments where biological resources are abundant, which is where Nature tends to allow for "extravagant"/unnecessary use of resources.

But basically, we can't take what evolution has produced as evidence of all of what's possible. Evolution is focused on reproduction and only works with what's available to it - bodies - so it makes sense that all intelligence produced by evolution would be embodied. This isn't a constraint on what's possible.
by prmph | 2025-05-29 17:57:16+00:00
There's something fundamental here.

There is a principle (I forget where I encountered it) that it is not code itself that is valuable, but the knowledge of a specific domain that an engineering team develops as they tackle a project. So code itself is a liability, but the domain knowledge is what is valuable. This makes sense to me and matched my long experience with software projects.

So, if we are entrusting coding to LLMs, how will that value develop? And if we want to use LLMs but at the same time develop the domain acumen, that means we would have to architects things and hand them over to LLMs to implement, thoroughly check what they produce, and generally guide them carefully. In that case they are not saving much time.
by aapoalas | 2025-05-29 17:57:34+00:00
Traits are a type of interface inheritance; base classes and inherited classes à la C++ is structural inheritance.

So basically it just means that I have to write more interfaces and implementations for them, because I don't have base classes to fall onto. Instead, in derived type/class instances I have an optional (maybe null) "pointer" to a base type/class instance. If the derived instance never uses its base class features, then the pointer stays null and no base instance is created.

Often derived objects in JS are only used for those derived features, so I save live memory. But: the derived object type needs its own version of at least some of the base class methods, so I pay more in instruction memory (executable size).
by wavemode | 2025-05-29 17:57:48+00:00
Have you ever even read the passage?

> 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

> 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”

> 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
by Daiz | 2025-05-29 17:57:56+00:00
If you're going to do script-based video processing in Python, I would highly recommend just going straight for Vapoursynth[1] instead. It's built for the purpose from the ground up, is actively maintained with a decent commmunity and tooling, and isn't tied to ffmpeg's CLI.

[1] https://www.vapoursynth.com/
by loudmax | 2025-05-29 17:58:55+00:00
Companies that leverage LLMs and AIs to let their employees be more productive will thrive.

Companies that try to replace their employees with LLMs and AIs will fail.

Unfortunately, all that's in the long run. In the near term, some CEOs and management teams will profit from the short term valuations as they squander their companies' future growth on short-sighted staff cuts.
by janalsncm | 2025-05-29 17:59:13+00:00
Software engineering is in the painful position of needing to explain the value of their job to management. It sucks because now we need to pull out these anecdotes of solving difficult bugs, with the implication that AI can’t handle it.

We have never been good at confronting the follies of management. The Leetcode interview process is idiotic but we go along with it. Ironically LC was one of the first victims of AI, but this is even more of an issue for management that things SWEs solve Leetcodes all day.

Ultimately I believe this is something that will take a cycle for business to figure out by failing. When businesses will figure out that 10 good engineers + AI always beats 5 + AI, it will become table stakes rather than something that replaces people.

Your competitor who didn’t just fire a ton of SWEs? Turns out they can pay for Cursor subscriptions too, and now they are moving faster than you.
by Meph504 | 2025-05-29 17:59:52+00:00
I wonder where the divide of "shebang" vs "hashbang" lands geographically and chronologically, During college and for many years in the early 90s and 2000s in the south it commonly called hashbang, didn't hear shebang until C# became a thing, I know it predates that, just never heard it before then.
by FridayoLeary | 2025-05-29 18:00:04+00:00
From what you say it sounds a boneheaded decision, to deprive students from a good education because other students aren't ready for it.

The UK excels at something similar, where they are trying to undermine private schools and even higher level public grammar schools. This is because it's only privileged children who can afford to go to there, and the outcomes are way better then public schools.

There is a term for this: "the politics of envy", where it's better to funnel everyone through the same mediocre system so that nobody can gain an advantage. This was very much the logic behind the recent law to tax private schools, and it's an idiotic principle.
by JeremyHerrman | 2025-05-29 18:00:51+00:00
Thanks, I understand how stereograms work and have quite a few of these IRL. I use cross-eyed method to quickly view them (albeit inverted depth) when shown on screen.

I've tried to show my point in these videos which show basically no difference between the two images when overlapped and crossfaded between the two. https://imgur.com/a/RMy3QA3
by guywithahat | 2025-05-29 18:01:15+00:00
Say neither of us are French, have never been to Paris, and have never studied it. Everyone in France says one thing about the city Paris, but you say the opposite. I don't need to be an expert on France and Paris to say that the millions of people living there probably know better than you.

In the same vein, claiming you know more about a religion than the millions/billions of people who follow it is a low-IQ take, especially if the person making the claim knows nothing about the religion.
by zonethundery | 2025-05-29 18:01:47+00:00
No doubt the headline's claim is true, but Claude just wrote a working MCP serving up the last 10 years of my employer's work product. For $13 in api credits.

While technically capable of building it on my own, development is not my day job and there are enough dumb parts of the problem my p(success) hand-writing it would have been abysmal.

With rose-tinted glasses on, maybe LLM's exponentially expand the amount of software written and the net societal benefit of technology.
by freedomben | 2025-05-29 18:01:48+00:00
> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

Dude, that's pretty harsh and I would say quite unfair given what they've said. If he/she/they/whatever believes that we are going to Hell, wouldn't the right thing to do be to tell us and try to save us?

I do think that plenty of people saying similar things can be elitist and requires a certain level of hubris/arrogance, but I don't think that's always the case, and GP definitely didn't strike me as one of those assholes.

> What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing?

These are excellent questions/arguments and are on my top five list of "reasons I am not a Christian," and I'd love to hear an explanation from any believers if they'd like to tackle them.
by nixpulvis | 2025-05-29 18:02:11+00:00
The number one use case for AI for me as a programmer is still help finding functions which are named something I didn't expect as I'm learning a new language/framework/library.

Doing the actual thinking is generally not the part I need too much help with. Though it can replace googling info in domains I'm less familiar with. The thing is, I don't trust the results as much and end up needing to verify it anyways. If anything AI has made this harder, since I feel searching the web for authoritative, expert information has become harder as of late.
by jdiff | 2025-05-29 18:02:11+00:00
The crazy thing is that people think that a model designed to predict sequences of tokens from a stem, no matter how advanced the model, to be much more than just "really good autocomplete."

It is impressive and very unintuitive just how far that can get you, but it's not reductive to use that label. That's what it is on a fundamental level, and aligning your usage with that will allow it to be more effective.