MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by int_19h | 2025-05-04 22:42:02+00:00
If you're targeting Windows, you can assume the following things to be present:

- the entirety of Win32 API

- all the Windows Runtime APIs

- .NET Framework 4.7+

This is a lot of functionality. For example, the list above includes four different widget toolkits alone (Win32, WinForms, WPF, WinRT XAML), several libraries to handle networking (including HTTP), USB, 2D and 3D graphics including text rendering, HTML renderer etc.

And all of this has a highly stable ABI, so long as you do everything by the book. COM/WinRT and .NET provide a stable ABI for high-level object-oriented APIs above and beyond what the basic C ABI can offer.
by jcranmer | 2025-05-04 22:42:27+00:00
There's no evidence of it in contexts where we would expect something like this to be mentioned. So the absence is a strong indication that it didn't happen.

> 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.

Yeah, pretty much nothing of that is actually reasonable.

First off, pre-modern military command at a tactical level is almost completely nonexistent. The only command that can be reliably given is "go", and even then, unless you're decently well drilled, that's still as likely to come from following what your neighbors are doing than being able to pay attention to your battlefield commander who might be a half-mile away. And archers are the least trained portion of the pre-modern battlefield!

Second, actually trying to hold everybody for a single coordinated volley seems incredibly counterproductive. The primary purpose of volley fire, as explained in the article, is to mitigate slow reload times. Archers have the opposite problem; they're going to exhaust their ammunition supply in a few minutes. Staggering the start time of the archer attack over, say, 30 seconds is actually a very significant percentage increase in the amount of time the attacking army is going to be harried by the archers.

> And I buy that the initial volley wouldn't have archers holding the bow taut for 30 seconds until a dramatic command to shoot -- rather, upon command, they would draw and fire in a single motion.

Already by this point, that means you don't have a single, solid pulse of arrows, but rather a continuous stream that's going to take--at least--2 or 3 seconds before everyone has loosed their first arrow. And quite probably, your slowest archers are loosing their first arrows after the fastest archers have loosed their second arrow. It doesn't make sense to me to call that a "volley", since it's not going to look anything like what we would think of as a mass volley of arrows.

Given that you're already stretching the definition of "volley" quite hard to match what you think is happening, and given that there is absolutely no sign that anyone ever thought trying to achieve a more cohesive initial volley was worth striving for, I think it does more harm than good to argue that volley fire existed in some form with regards to regular bows.
by johnea | 2025-05-04 22:42:36+00:00
I have to wonder how much of that article is LLM generated.

I'm pretty sure the exact same info could have been conveyed in 1/4 the number of words. I found it impossible to read the whole thing, word for word, and was seriously skimming by the end. Very low information density.

It really seems aimed at people who order McDonalds via DoorDash, neither company from which I would ever buy anything. Who actually wants to eat that sh1t?

And like all "the market is magical" puff pieces, it bases it's conclusions on dream state theory with no accommodation of actual human involvement. One example is the complete avoidance of anything inferring wealth's "third option".

When responding to "the network treats any censorship as damage, and reroutes", entrenched capital always has the third option: when a threat to profit can't be overcome by first ignoring it, and second by actively trying to crush it, it can always be defeated with the third option, by simply acquiring it.

FacePlant bought InstaGram, Goggle bought youtube, M$ bought github and linkedin.

The ultimate veto power of the third option is evident all around us.

And like the vacuous market theory that claims "market competition solves all problems", major capital entities hate competition, and take any step necessary to eliminate it. Since most startups fail, the first option is simply to wait for the problem to go away. When that doesn't work, active opposition often solves the problem. But when all else fails, buy it.

As a development engineer over decades, I often cited the theory vs reality maxim:

The main difference between theory and reality, is that in theory they're the same, but in reality they're not.

This applies doubly to economic theory...
by staunton | 2025-05-04 22:42:40+00:00
That leads to a kind of fluid distinction similar to interpreted vs. compiled languages.

You tell the AI what you want it to do. The AI does what you want. It might process the requests itself, working at the "code level" of your input, which is the prompt. It might also generate some specific bytecode, taking time an effort which is made up for by more efficiently processing inputs. You could have something like JIT, where the AI decides which program to use for the given request, occasionally making and caching a new one if none fit.
by nine_k | 2025-05-04 22:42:41+00:00
In my experience, hackathons in larger companies are valves that sometimes release the pressure of things that people wanted to do, had been planning to do and thinking through for months before the hackathon was even scheduled, and finally are allowed to implement. These are binge-programming days/nights when the engineers finally don't need to work on tickets, and don't have to follow the due processes.

Corollary: if your company promises to have a hackathon one day, it's best to get prepared and have a bunch of good ideas well ahead of time.
by sergiishcherbak | 2025-05-04 22:42:48+00:00
As part of work on my open-source project ContextGem, I've built a native, zero-dependency DOCX converter that transforms Word documents into LLM-ready data.

This custom-built converter directly processes Word XML, provides comprehensive content extraction + covers what other open-source tools often miss or lack support for:

- Rich paragraph and sentence metadata for enhanced context

- Misaligned tables

- Comments, footnotes, and textboxes

- Embedded images

The converted document can then be easily used in ContextGem's LLM extraction workflows.

Perfect for developers building contract intelligence applications where precision matters. The converter preserves document structure and relationships, empowering LLMs to better understand and analyze document content.

Try it / share with your dev team today and see the difference in your document processing pipeline!

GitHub: https://github.com/shcherbak-ai/contextgem

All DocxConverter features: https://contextgem.dev/converters/docx.html
by sshine | 2025-05-04 22:42:52+00:00
It’s not free, you get pizzas!

A recent boss mandated that people come on weekends. Everyone’s contract said you have to, except mine. I pointed out to the boss that even though he can ask people to work on weekends, there are laws that prevent how much (you need more and longer breaks, and you can’t do it every weekend.)

He got cold feet and cancelled the event. But he forgot to tell people. The most junior developer had spent 2+ hours on the commute.

These are not real hackathons.

They’re corporate knockoffs.
by sn9 | 2025-05-04 22:42:55+00:00
> I should hope that the purpose of a class writing exercise is not to create an artifact of text but force the student to think; a language model produces the former, not the latter.

It's been incredibly blackpilling seeing how many intelligent professionals and academics don't understand this, especially in education and academia.

They see work as the mere production of output, without ever thinking about how that work builds knowledge and skills and experience.

Students who know least of all and don't understand the purpose of writing or problem solving or the limitations of LLMs are currently wasting years of their lives letting LLMs pull them along as they cheat themselves out of an education, sometimes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to let their brains atrophy only to get a piece of paper and face the real world where problems get massively more open-ended and LLMs massively decline in meeting the required quality of problem solving.

Anyone who actually struggles to solve problems and learn themselves is going to have massive advantages in the long term.
by rayiner | 2025-05-04 22:43:16+00:00
> I point to issue polling because I'm pointing out the obvious fact that much of what he and his appointees actually done isn't the will of the public

The reason we have elections and not issue polls is because voters balance the totality of the circumstances in reaching their decisions. People may or may not like this or that incident in the moment, but that doesn’t mean they disapprove of the overall arc of the policy. So, for example, polls show that virtually no Trump voters regret their vote and he’d probably win a rematch: https://emersoncollegepolling.com/trump-100-days/ (Emerson is a good pollster, its final 2024 polls nailed Trump’s actual share, and overestimated Harris only by 2). Issue polls taken in the moment also suffer from response bias—e.g. people who approve of the overall arc of Trump’s immigration policy are less likely to respond to polling about a flub than people who are outraged by the policy itself. (The 2024 Harris bounce should be a good lesson in response bias!)

And a rule based on second guessing election results based on issue polling would never be applied even handedly—judges are definitionally elites and such a rule would be applied to favor their preferences. Issue polling showed the ACA under water for quite some time. Roberts had ample basis for finding the statute unconstitutional—far less of a stretch than the expansive interpretations of asylum laws—but he admirably saved it. And I’d argue that, contrary to the issue polls, Obamas’s reelection ultimately bore out that the ACA had a mandate.
by aziaziazi | 2025-05-04 22:43:53+00:00
Hack the hackathon. My follow-at-your-own-risk pro tip: Find a team not too much into wining and

- connect with others. They’re primarily networking events and are still good for that.

- Don’t bother checking the sponsors boxes too much. Have fun trying technical/product ideas that interest your for any _personal_ reason. Should fit with your team project obviously. If not, keep it for next time and instead:

- peer with others. Peering with a person you don’t know is an incredible social and technical experience, whatever your level difference.

- sleep at night. You want to be rested to have a good and useful time.

- don’t bother too much wining. The podium looks fancy but won’t make much a difference as soon as the doors close. It doesn’t really make a difference for networking, bootstrapping the resume line or having fun. But:

- aim for a MVP or at least something that run and you can show. It’s not fun to tight the last knobs afterwards. Something (anything) functional will make you and your team proud, will assist the resume line and will be fun and memberberries for the future.
by parpfish | 2025-05-04 22:43:55+00:00
I’m curious if a sortition would work for passing legislation.

Instead of wrangling legislators and trading favors to get exactly 50%+1 votes, have the pass/fail determined by a single randomly selected voter. It would encourage much more cooperation and broad consensus building because a bill that gets 50%+1 votes isn’t 50/50 pass fail.

(Of course you’d need some sort of rate limiting so you couldn’t just keep spamming votes until it passes)
by palata | 2025-05-04 22:44:19+00:00
> We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers

We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us).

> Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well.

I don't know what your job is. But if your job is to produce text that is meant to be read by humans, then it feels like not being able to synthesise your ideas yourself doesn't make you excellent at doing your job.

Again maybe it makes you productive. Many developers, for instance, get paid for writing bad code (either because those who pay don't care about quality or can't make a difference, or something else). Vibe coding obviously makes those developers more productive. But I don't believe it will make them learn how to produce good code. Good for them if they make money like this, of course.
by kevinventullo | 2025-05-04 22:44:43+00:00
Something I’ve found very helpful is when I have a murky idea in my head that would take a long time for me to articulate concisely, and I use an LLM to compress what I’m trying to say. So I type (or even dictate) a stream of consciousness with lots of parentheticals and semi-structured thoughts and ask it to summarize. I find it often does a great job at saying what I want to say, but better.

(See also the famous Pascal quote “This would have been a shorter letter if I had the time”).

P.s. for reference I’ve asked an LLM to compress what I wrote above. Here is the output:

When I have a murky idea that’s hard to articulate, I find it helpful to ramble—typing or dictating a stream of semi-structured thoughts—and then ask an LLM to summarize. It often captures what I mean, but more clearly and effectively.
by giraffe_lady | 2025-05-04 22:44:51+00:00
It's only logical with video game reasoning imo. In actual life each archer would have a different bow, varying physical strength, ability at the extreme end of their range, visual acuity, practice assessing where the extreme end of their range even is, etc etc.

It seems extremely unlikely that a group of individuals would all make the exact same choice simultaneously without a prearranged signal for it. And I think the post itself makes a strong enough case for why that signal wouldn't be made.
by shoo | 2025-05-04 22:45:01+00:00
> Blue-Green migrations for example require a graceful exit behavior.

it may not always be necessary. e.g. if you are deploying a new version of a stateless backend service, and there is a load balancer forwarding traffic to current version and new version backends, the load balancer could be responsible for cutting over, allowing in flight requests to be processed by the current version backends while only forwarding new requests to the new backends. then the old backends could be ungracefully terminated once the LB says they are not processing any requests.
by timmaxw | 2025-05-04 22:46:21+00:00
> Cut threads into printed parts with a thread tap for quick design of low-reuse joints.

I've found wood screws work well for this. The wood screw can cut its own threads without needing to use a tap.

It does put some stress on the part, though. I mostly print in PETG, which is strong enough; but PLA might split if the hole was parallel to the layers.

> A design limitation of threaded inserts is that they are not reliably usable for screws inserted from the back side. During insertion, heat-set inserts often push some molten plastic into the hole beneath them, preventing easy insertion of a screw from the back side.

A trick I sometimes use:

1. Before installing the insert, insert the screw from the back side

2. Screw the insert onto the protruding screw

3. Use a soldering iron to install the insert+screw together into the plastic

Because the screw is filling the hole, the molten plastic can't block the hole. Instead, the molten plastic forms itself around the screw, and it acts like a Nyloc nut.
by charcircuit | 2025-05-04 22:46:24+00:00
>You can't have an OS that you can tinker around with and an OS that is secure from cheaters

But do these need to be the same OS? Or is it possible to have them be partitioned off from each other that way you can have a game run with full integrity and then also be able to have a customized experience for things which don't care about integrity.
by sab3ra | 2025-05-04 22:47:36+00:00
Location: New York, NY

Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes. Also open to hybrid!

Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11JdVtTnOdaw7cnmJOpvTleUIn1c...

Technologies: Java, Python, C, SQL, JavaScript, HTML/CSS, Tableau, Figma, Power BI, ArcGIS Pro, Civil 3D

About me: I am a recent grad (May 2025) with a Computer Science degree from Columbia University, Barnard College. I currently work as a Data Engineering Intern at the NYC Department of Transportation. I have a very well-rounded background and I am looking to contribute and grow meaningfully!
by jltsiren | 2025-05-04 22:48:29+00:00
In a cavalry charge, the shield protects as much (or as little) as otherwise. The horse is doing the actual work, while the rider can use the shield normally.

An infantry charge starts at the last moment. At that point, the infantry formation has been in the effective bow range for a couple of minutes. It would be stupid to exhaust yourself by running a long distance over rough terrain carrying a heavy load before the fighting even starts. And shields tend to be large enough that the additional protection from them outweighs the gains from reaching the enemy faster.
by echelon | 2025-05-04 22:49:24+00:00
I know this is satire, but you're right. In the future loose requirements will produce statically executable plans that run fast in future invocations.

Our jobs will be replaced. It's just a matter of when. I'm very pessimistic about the near term. But long term, there's no way the jobs we do survive in their current form.

If I were to guess, I'd say 20 or more years? But who knows.
by Brian_K_White | 2025-05-04 22:51:09+00:00
What exactly is the nature of this fantasyland? I have to have said I wanted or expected something for that to make any sense. You make silly claims based on nothing. That is not an argument.

In fact it's the other way around. Expecting to enjoy both the benefits of OSS and the benefits of collecting rent at the same time for the same thing is the fantasyland.
by palata | 2025-05-04 22:51:47+00:00
> Students who know least of all and don't understand the purpose of writing or problem solving or the limitations of LLMs are currently wasting years of their lives

Exactly. I tend to think that the role of a teacher is to get the students to realise what learning is all about and why it matters. The older the students get, the more important it is.

The worst situation is a student finishing university without having had that realisation: they got through all of it with LLMs, and probably didn't learn how to learn or how to think critically. Those who did, on the other hand, didn't need the LLMs in the first place.
by gyomu | 2025-05-04 22:53:31+00:00
Yeah, the author here is as much a part of the problem. If you let students get away with submitting ChatGPT nonsense, of course they’re going to do that - they don’t care about the 3000 words appeal to emotion on your blog, they take the path of least resistance.

If you’re not willing to cross out an entire assignment and return it to the student who handed it in with “ChatGPT nonsense, 0” written in big red letters at the top of it, you should ask yourself what is the point of your assignments in the first place.

But I get it, university has become a pay-to-win-a-degree scheme for students, and professors have become powerless to enforce any standards or discipline in the face of administrators.

So all they can do is give the ChatGPT BS the minimum passing grade and then philosophize about it on their blog (which the students will never read).
by amy214 | 2025-05-04 22:53:42+00:00
Your article basically says auto dealers are racist but federal contractors and "profitable companies" are generally more comparable. The solution would be to enforce racist regulations against the auto dealer, not falsely generalize the problem and enforce a solution. Secondly, there are fields of academia that make it a point to show racism exists and to uncover racism, so publications like this are as fraught with conflicts of interest as a cigarette company researcher investigating the benefits of nicotine. Pointing the finger at white people is also problematic, it's a racial supply/demand, and generally at competitive fields like medicine or programming, competitive schools, one sees a proportional oversaturation of asians (per capita) versus whites. Shall we say employers are favoring asians and talk about the asian menace, as we do the white menace? If particular races, often tagging a cultural history, are associated with different cultural preferences for lifestyle or career, I would simply say "so what?" If the goal is to homogenize equal participation from all demographics groups to all vocations, to me that seems silly and runs against human nature, it can be expected to work as well as the communist efforts of societal homogenization we saw in the 20th century. Yes, we need to kick the tires and convince ourselves that all are afforded somewhat fair opportunities, but seeing race as a confounder here or there, and immediately leaping to systematic racism as the purported mechanism - that's just poor science.
by sneak | 2025-05-04 22:53:46+00:00
Yes, that’s why it’s shady. It expects the community to contribute to this free software project, only to use those contributions in nonfree software. It’s trying to leverage community efforts for private gain.

If you believe in the ideology of software freedoms, you don’t release nonfree software. It’s open source cosplay.

Linux is GPL and that hasn’t stopped anyone from adopting it.
by mindcrime | 2025-05-04 22:54:13+00:00
It's maybe a bit of a cliche, and perhaps a bit dated now, but you could probably do worse than The Soul of a New Machine by Kidder.[1]

Another option I like, although it might be too much material / too dense, would be Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy.[2]

And given that security will probably never not be an important sub-topic to anybody working in the technology field, some fun and interesting books to consider could include:

- Cyberpunk: Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier by Katie Hafner and John Markoff[3]

- The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage by Cliff Stoll[4]

There is also Inventing the Future by Albert Cory[5]. Interesting side-note: the author is an HN'er. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=AlbertCory

All of that said, I think Nineteen Eighty Four is an excellent choice as well. I've often cited it as one of the most influential books I've read in my life, as far as its impact on me personally.

And if we're talking fiction, I think Neuromancer[6] has some appeal. Now might be a good time for that as well, what with the Apple TV screen adaptation coming out soon(ish). And the main theme of the book - an Artificial Intelligence seeking to grow beyond its legally permitted bounds - could really resonate with the current zeitgeist and all the hubbub about "AI safety" and "xRisk" and so on.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy-Kidder/dp/0316...

[2]: https://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Steven-Le...

[3]: https://www.amazon.com/Cyberpunk-Outlaws-Hackers-Computer-Fr...

[4]: https://www.amazon.com/Cuckoos-Egg-Tracking-Computer-Espiona...

[5]: https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Future-Albert-Cory/dp/17362...

[6]: https://www.amazon.com/Neuromancer-William-Gibson/dp/0441007...
by haiku2077 | 2025-05-04 22:55:36+00:00
Generally arrows are gonna be coming from in front of me in the field, not arcing over like artillery.

https://youtube.com/shorts/0AWfhAcFu_k?si=XokulP_9f3aFl2mu

However, if the enemy has an elevated position, that is literally what the romans did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_formation