MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dkdcio | 2025-05-27 15:44:57+00:00
Huge "it depends", but typically organizations are not querying all of their data at once. Usually, they're processing it in some time-based increments.

Even if it's in the TB-range, we're at the point where high-spec laptops can handle it (my own benchmarking: https://ibis-project.org/posts/1tbc/). When I tried to go up to 10TB TPC-H queries on large cloud VMs I did hit some malloc (or other memory) issues, but that was a while ago and I imagine DuckDB can fly past that these days too. Single-node definitely has limits, but it's hard to see how 99%+ of organizations really need distributed computing in 2025.
by dandelion9 | 2025-05-27 15:45:01+00:00
At a basic level any Lisp-like with an editor integrated REPL lets you put your cursor over the `greet` invocation below and evaluate it, and have the results shown in the manner of your choice (IDE window, inline temporary comment, etc).

This is all in the file as saved to your version control:

(defn greet [name] (-> (str "Hello, " name "!") println)) (comment (greet "worldsayshi"))

It's 90% of the way to being a test already, just from the typical workflow.
Ask HN: Do deep tech startups follow one of these 3 fundraising narratives?
by rchaudhary | 2025-05-27 15:45:01+00:00
I wrote a short article based on patterns I’ve seen across deep tech founders and early-stage investors.

The most fundable startups I’ve worked with usually frame their story using one of three narrative types:

1) Unlocking a new category

2) Accelerating a known adoption curve

3) Solving a scaled constraint

I break each down here with examples: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-deep-tech-fundraising-narratives-actually-work-rahul-chaudhary-tzbxe/

Would love to hear from others — especially technical founders and investors in hard tech or frontier tech: Have you seen these patterns in the wild?
by whatnow37373 | 2025-05-27 15:45:03+00:00
People will start caring when their devices start bricking, loading websites takes 12sec and registering for medicaid is only possible between 9 and 11AM and then only if lucky.

We are in this weird twilight zone where everything is still relativity high quality and stuff sort of works but in a few decades shit will start degrading faster than you can say “OpenAI”.

Weird thing will start happening like tax systems for the government not being able to be upgraded while consuming billions, infrastructure failing for unknown reasons, simple non or low-power devices that are now ubiquitous will become rare. Everything will require subscriptions and internet access and nothing will work right. You will have to talk to LLMs all day.
by kamaal | 2025-05-27 15:45:08+00:00
>>You’re exactly right that it’s practice.

Thinking is a incremental process, you make small changes to things, verify if they are logically consistent and work from there.

What is to practice here? If you know something is true, practicing the mechanical aspects of it is text book definition of rote learning.

This whole thing reads like the academic system thinks making new science(Math, Physics etc) is for special geniuses and the remainder has to be happy watching the whole thing like some one demonstrating a 'sleight of hand' of hand trick.

Teach people how to discover new truths. Thats the point of thinking.
by Giridhar03 | 2025-05-27 15:45:41+00:00
Love the concept but worried about the user adoption curve. Email forwarding is still a manual step.

Suggestions:

- Gmail/Outlook extensions that add 'Process with MX' buttons directly in the interface

- Sample forwarding rules for common email clients so people can set up automation

- Maybe a 'trial mode' where people can paste email content on your site without forwarding?

The aliasing system is clever - reminds me of old-school email filters but AI-powered.
by kelseyfrog | 2025-05-27 15:45:46+00:00
I think it's important to mention the two main underlying streams of thought in functional that contribute to minimalism: Louis Henry Sullivan's maxim "form follows function," and Adolph Loo's Ornament and Crime[1]. Both of these made ornamentation unjustifiable, either that ornamentation doesn't have a function, or that it is a product of uncivilized impulses.

What's left is that every design choice must be functional leaving minimalism as the bleached bones of design - the only thing left after everything has been stripped away. I want to be clear that functionalism and minimalism are not synonymous, but one's impact on the other is rarely overstated.

1. https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Ornament_und_Verbrechen
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-05-27 15:45:53+00:00
He was also, at that point, very old. He started his first fund in 1968. It tells you something about the modern world that you can your fund successfully for three decades, accumulate one of the best all-time records, and you will still have people online call you useless if you bow out in your 70s when your returns go dry for a couple of years.
by skydhash | 2025-05-27 15:46:22+00:00
And autopilot rely on consistent environment. Full focus isn't sustainable. Training and practice rely on this capability, ingraining something in muscle memory so you don't have to pay that much attention. When someone wants to fill a form or process some data, the less he/she pays attention to each action, the better it is.

EDIT

And that's why I like Vim and most TUI that much. I don't need to follow the cursor or wait an abitrary amount of time because "reasons". It's all muscle memory, and my attention is more on what I'm trying to do than how I'm doing it.
Show HN: Replyhub finds your customers on Reddit and X
by Tanzirul | 2025-05-27 15:47:06+00:00
Hey everyone, I built Replyhub because I was frustrated spending hours scrolling through Reddit and X trying to find potential leads for my SaaS. This tool monitors conversations in real time and helps surface posts where people are already asking for recommendations or solutions.

I’d really appreciate any feedback, especially on what feels useful, what’s missing, or if there are better ways this could work for you.

Happy to answer questions!

Website: https://replyhub.co
by yesco | 2025-05-27 15:47:38+00:00
I like to joke with people that us programmers automated our jobs away decades ago, we just tell our fancy compilers what we want and they magically generate all the code for us!

I don't see LLMs as much different really, our jobs becoming easier just means there's more things we can do now and with more capabilities comes more demand. Not right away of course.
by sanderjd | 2025-05-27 15:47:46+00:00
This doesn't resonate with me at all.

First of all, all the most successful software products have had very high quality. Google search won because it was good and fast. All the successful web browsers work incredibly well. Ditto the big operating systems. The iPhone is an amazing product. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok; whatever else you think, these are not buggy or sluggish products, (especially in their prime). Stripe grew by making a great product. The successful B2B products are also very high quality. I don't have much love for Databricks, but it works well. I have found Okta to be extremely impressive. Notion works really well. (There are some counterexamples: I'm not too impressed by Rippling, for instance.)

Where are all these examples of products that have succeeded despite not valuing quality?
by resters | 2025-05-27 15:47:53+00:00
Thank you for articulating this. I think it's what a lot of his supporters think is happening. What perplexes me are the following:

1) Is "The Art of the Deal" respected among actual business leaders and negotiators as a substantive contribution to negotiation tactics?

2) If what Trump is doing is in fact a highly effective tactic, how is it possible that so many people who are skilled at negotiation, skilled a business, far more wealthy and successful than Trump, etc., etc., fail to see the genius of it? I'm pretty sure that if there were actually something to it, at least some of those types of people would "come around" to supporting it and they would explain what he's doing to the American people (if it's right out of "The Art of the Deal" then clearly any negotiating adversary would be familiar with the tactic since the book is a short, quick read).

3) How would the negotiation tactics Trump is using be described/framed by traditional game theorists and tacticians? Suppose Trump is actually highly disciplined in the execution of a grand strategy, what would there be to object to, the tactic of acting unpredictably? Or would there be criticism of the downside risk of the strategy being unacceptable?

4) What has Trump or the US gained in the past from these kind of tactics? I'm serious when I say that I don't think Trump has improved the US negotiated position in any of the domains he's promised to. His revisions to NAFTA were trivial, his revisions to the Iran deal resulted in the US having a far weaker hand, his negotiations with N. Korea were inconsequential, and his negotiations (so far) with Mexico and Canada have seemingly harmed all parties and reduced trust, thus reducing the chances for a better outcome in the future. on Ukraine/Russia there is not really any negotiating to be done, it's more of a question of whether the US wants to keep spending money on an expensive and risky war that we are losing while pretending we are not actually in one.

5) In trade negotiations, what is the "back room"? I realize the US is opaque domestically and internationally about what is US "national interest", but typically with trade the incentives are extremely clear -- there are always domestic factions on both sides who are the relative winners or losers of any change to tariffs or trade policy, etc.
by aliasaria | 2025-05-27 15:47:58+00:00
Getting ROCm working was... an adventure. We documented the entire (painful) journey in a detailed blog post because honestly, nothing went according to plan. If you've ever wrestled with ROCm setup for ML, you'll probably relate to our struggles.

The good news? Everything works smoothly now! We'd love for you to try it out and see what you think.
by ziofill | 2025-05-27 15:48:42+00:00
Actually optical interconnects are the biggest of (photonic) quantum computing problems. If we had good enough optical interconnects (i.e. with low enough optical loss) we would already have a fault-tolerant quantum computer. See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08406-9 (also note that Aurora produces 12 physical qubit modes at each clock cycle)
by gbraad | 2025-05-27 15:48:43+00:00
Have a few Tinys for when I worked on OpenStack. They are now used as a router, and desktop and thinclient, for a lot more recent Tiny that runs a few VMs/containers for the homelab. Easy to get spare parts for and reliable. Do check if they accept internal (mini)PCIe devices if you want to add a network adapter, as some are whitelisted to only take some certified wifi devices.
by tayo42 | 2025-05-27 15:48:44+00:00
Lets go back to my original point, related to spending 3-4 years studying CS. You and the other guy that responded are getting way off topic and putting words in my mouth.

What I didn't say is that computer science knowledge is useless. So lets not get distracted by this imaginary point.

Most of the unrelated degree for CS work is useless. You already admitted that the three calculus classes required for a BS weren't useful. I pointed out the into python class isn't useful. We already knocked off a semester of classes.

We really aren't using physics developing most software by CS graduates.

> I never would have developed a holistic understanding of how the whole system works together.

Kids coming out of school don't have this. Most people working don't understand the entire system. I worked at decent companies. There are plenty of people who will just stop at "JVM does something with my code". I see this especially bad with the people coming out of AI specializations

The gen eds were all intro level classes, the only thing to take away is there are more to know. If your making decisions about the world based on an intro to law class or your if knowledge of economics is still at the level of supply and demand I think your being naive about your level of competence in those areas. In hindsight after living life after school and working these classes really weren't a great use of time.

I don't think college is the place to support your hobbies. Things like art workshops provide a better learning experience then art history or w/e. Even reading is more enjoyable post school for me.

Getting some pop sci level books and reading for a bit would have been better all around then sitting in intro lectures with 100 other students.
by thomastjeffery | 2025-05-27 15:48:49+00:00
Let me rephrase their point, then:

The fact that AI can replace the work that you are measured on should tell you something about the measurement itself.

The goal of learning should be to enrich the learner. Instead, the goal of learning is to pass measure. Success has been quietly replaced with victory. Now LLMs are here to call that bluff.
by caseysoftware | 2025-05-27 15:49:09+00:00
> Business has never valued quality. Customers can value quality, but business only values profit margins.

If think you're really close with one nuance.

Business does not value CODE quality. Their primary goal is to ship product quickly enough that they can close customers. If you're in a fast moving or competitive space, quality matters more because you need to ship differentiating features. If the space is slow moving, not prone to migration, etc, then the shipping schedule can be slower and quality is less important.

That said, customers care about "quality" but they likely define it very differently.. primarily as "usability"

They don't care about the code behind the scenes, what framework you used, etc as long as the software a) does what they want and b) does it "quick enough" in their opinion.
by vixen99 | 2025-05-27 15:49:15+00:00
I thought I would check out your comment against other opinions: " Mozart’s contact with the mastery of the German contrapuntal tradition opened a completely new musical horizon. He produced a number of stand-alone fugues, and this newly gained compositional skill helped to inform the creation of his final sublime orchestral masterpieces. Words simply can’t describe the jaw-dropping and breathtaking fugal display of quintuple invertible counterpoint in the final movement of the “Jupiter.”

We should all listen to the Jupiter and decide for ourselves if 'Mozart was never able to'.

https://interlude.hk/fugues-and-other-musical-charms-from-ba...
by ToucanLoucan | 2025-05-27 15:49:16+00:00
That quote bugs me a little because it presumes that mail order hadn't existed before then, that it was some sort of "act of faith." Sears was selling whole ass houses via the mail in the early 1900's, that's where the term "Craftsman home" came from; it's literally the then-owned-by-Sears brand.
by mschuster91 | 2025-05-27 15:49:21+00:00
Well surprise, people cheat because an academic degree is yet another checkbox to be ticked in the ever more grueling list of tasks needed to be done to acquire a job that has even a remote chance of paying a living wage.

Fix that, so that only those actually interested in academia per se and not just because they need a checkbox to tick remain, and the problem with cheating in academia will collapse.
by skippyboxedhero | 2025-05-27 15:49:43+00:00
It doesn't, more efficient lines = better odds for punters. That is why Pinny/Asian books have better odds. The worst experience for gamblers is one with significant government intervention and/or limited professional involvement because there is no price discovery. Bookies don't just return that value to customers, in practice, they spend it on wildly expensive marketing, this means they have to offer lower payouts, and then spend inordinate amounts of time and money stopping professionals picking off their shitty lines.
by thepryz | 2025-05-27 15:50:01+00:00
What I find interesting is the author neglects to mention that Jony Ive was responsible for both introducing the flat design in iOS 7 they seem to lament and the AirBnB redesign they're praising as a positive paradigm shift.

In my opinion, a lot recent UI/UX and visual design has become less about seeking to understand and improve the way we interact with machines and more about promoting a digital form of fast fashion full of trends that everyone is expected to follow - change for the sake of change. This post only provides more support for that.
by freedomben | 2025-05-27 15:50:07+00:00
This seems like a relatively bad approach in general. An even more minimalist bicycle can just be your legs, depends on whether you really need a bicycle at all. A more minimalist pair of shoes would be sandals, or even more minimalist is just going barefoot and building callouses on your soles. You also don't really need to look stylish, so a more minimalist set of clothing can just be a sheet that you wrap around yourself. I don't find this to be a useful line of thinking.
by mindslight | 2025-05-27 15:50:18+00:00
I've never gotten the obsession with patch panels and small (laminar) patch cables on server racks. It seems to make more sense just to mount the switches on the back of the rack, and run the cables directly? And then cables leading off the rack can just go directly from the switch (appropriately labeled)

I do totally get it for building wiring, where the patch panel is used to bulk terminate cables going elsewhere into fixed 2-post racks, and the patch cords take care of the higher level concern of assigning switch ports. But doing it on a home server rack just feels like cargo cult copying that pattern for not much gain.
by nextn | 2025-05-27 15:51:59+00:00
Anyone who sells is a scalper.

This is easy to notice. You can't go around saying "I've got two front row" when the mere act of saying it gets you noticed. You can't post online you're selling tickets because it gets you noticed.

Only the venue/band sells. Only the venue/band buys back tickets, and they're required to buy them back at the price they were sold. Full refund of ticket price and bond.

If noticing scalpers is easy, the bond doesn't need to be silly high. Catch a scalper and you get 50% of their bond.
by calibas | 2025-05-27 15:52:08+00:00
> Is/was the same true for ASCII/Smalltalk/binary? They are all another way to translate language into something the computer "understands".

That's converting characters into a digital representation. "A" is represented as 01000001. The tokenization process for an LLM is similar, but it's only the first step.

An LLM isn't just mapping a word to a number, you're taking the entire sentence, considering the position of the words and converting it into vectors within a 1,000+ dimensional space. Machine learning has encoded some "meaning" within these dimensions that goes far far beyond something like an ASCII string.

And the proof here is that the method actual works, that's why we have LLMs.
by JohnFen | 2025-05-27 15:52:15+00:00
> It's a clear admission that match outcomes are predetermined.

It's no secret that WWE style wrestling is theater rather than an actual competitive sport. The majority of people who follow it are certainly aware of that.

> How is that good for business?

Because it lets them craft more compelling storylines and lore that stretches over years. Since it's a kind of theater, the story is the thing that people are paying for.
by Demiurge | 2025-05-27 15:52:22+00:00
Many interesting things, for instance, I've been hearing a lot about how fast Java is, that it can be as fast as C++, and then I see this:

> But after a few weeks, it compiled and the results surprised us. The code was 10x faster than our carefully tuned Kotlin implementation – despite no attempt to make it faster. To put this in perspective, we had spent years incrementally improving the Kotlin version from 2,000 to 3,000 transactions per second (TPS). The Rust version, written by Java developers who were new to the language, clocked 30,000 TPS.

I feel like there is more to this, like some kind of a bottleneck, memory footprint, some IO overhead?

> Our conclusion was to rewrite our data plane entirely in Rust.

The point is well taken, figuring it out is not worth it, if you can just "rewrote" or have green field projects.

> These extension points are part of Postgres’ public API, allowing you to modify behavior without changing core code

Also, interesting. So PostgreSQL evolved to the point that it has a stable API for extensibility? This great for the project, maintain a modular design, and some stable APIs and, you can let people mix and match and reduce duplication of effort.
by mjb | 2025-05-27 15:52:36+00:00
> Maybe one can transform slow code from high level languages to low level language via LLMs in future.

This is one of the areas I'm most excited for LLM developer tooling. Choosing a language, database, or framework is a really expensive up-front decision for a lot of teams, made when they have the least information about what they're building, and very expensive to take back.

If LLM-powered tools could take 10-100x off the cost of these migrations, it would significantly reduce the risk of early decisions, and make it a ton easier to make software more reliable and cheaper to run.

It's very believable to me that, even with today's model capabilities, that 10-100x is achievable.
by latchkey | 2025-05-27 15:53:32+00:00
No need to build your own box, we've got 1xMI300x VMs, for FREE (thanks to AMD), for development exactly like this. Reach out and we can get you set up.

Someone left a comment accusing me of advertising my business, then deleted it. If that’s how it came across, I apologize, but my intention was to offer something genuinely useful, for free, and directly relevant to helping the OP. Those credits weren’t easy to get, it required going all the way up to Lisa. I’m committed to making supercompute accessible to developers. Yes, it’s free like GitHub is free. But this isn’t a sales pitch.
by seniorThrowaway | 2025-05-27 15:53:55+00:00
It can also be different within the same university, by department. I graduated from a university with a highly ranked and research oriented engineering department. I started in computer engineering which was in the college of engineering but ended up switching to computer science which was in the college of arts and sciences. The difference in the teachers and classroom experience was remarkable. It definitely seemed like the professors in the CS department actually wanted to teach and actually enjoyed teaching as compared to the engineering professors who treated it like it was wasting their time and expected you to learn everything from the book and their half-assed bullet point one way lectures. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your view, it also meant having to take more traditional liberal arts type electives in order to graduate.
by dkarl | 2025-05-27 15:54:14+00:00
> Works out great for the employer

Does it? I think employers would be far better off if they didn't have to manage benefits. Having the employer administer everything was the deal we struck to provide socialist-like assurances for the middle classes while keeping the word "socialism" out of politics. The cost is every employer managing a complex system of benefits, workers navigating a bunch of different benefits systems as they change employers, more benefits systems to paper over gaps, and separate systems for a few categories of non-employed people that it would seem too brutal to leave unsupported. It's fantastically complicated, and there's no point to doing it that way except that we can call it capitalism.