MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jahaskell | 2025-05-29 19:09:19+00:00
We just launched Osly, a new way to build automated workflows using natural language. Think Zapier or n8n, but without the headache of wiring everything together with code or drag-and-drop builders. You can: * "Take my hubspot contacts list, enrich with their email, position and company, and draft personalized emails to each" * "Draft twitter replies to tweets related to AI in my following" * "Summarize my recent emails about AI Startup School and create calendar events based on the schedule" You can find more information on the integrations we support on our about page: https://app.osly.ai/about For now, workflows run in our custom frontend, but support for triggers and scheduling is on the way. We’re in early beta and would love your feedback. Try our prduct → https://app.osly.ai/ Join our discord -> https://discord.gg/kvaAYRNc
by WorldMaker | 2025-05-29 19:09:45+00:00
.NET Standard 2.0 will break? I think it's frozen for good. That's also the biggest problem with it: there are so many performance improvements in .NET 7+ that .NET Standard can't opt into but come "free" with retargeting. (Among other things, a lot more Span<T> overloads throughout the BCL. There is a compatibility shim for Memory<T> and Span<T> access in .NET Standard 2.0 and that also includes some of the new overloads, but not all of them.)

Targeting a specific .NET version will break in a year? LTS versions specifically have two years of support. But also .NET has very rarely broken backward compat and you can still easily load libraries built targeting .NET 5 in .NET 9 today. You don't necessarily have to "keep up with the treadmill". It's a good idea: see "free performance boosts when you do". But it isn't required and .NET 5 is still a better target from today's perspective than .NET Standard 2.0. (The biggest instance I know of a backwards compatibility break in .NET was the rescoping between .NET [Framework] 3.5.x and .NET [Framework] 4.0 on what was BCL and what was out/no longer supported and that was still nothing like Python 2 versus 3. I know a lot of people would also count the .NET Framework 4.x and .NET Core 1.0 split, too, which is the reason for the whole mess of things like .NET Standard, but also .NET Standard was the backward compatibility guarantee and .NET Standard 2.0 was its completion point, even though yes there are versions > 2.0, which are even less something anyone needs to worry about today.)
by ben_w | 2025-05-29 19:09:48+00:00
Given how often American "kings" leave the metaphorical playing board, this isn't chess: it is non-euclidian, real-time, penultima, on a continuous board, with hundreds of players and billions of pieces (and any given piece is under the control of potentially multiple players), and where the secret rules for every piece include self-playing behaviours and weird emergent dynamics.

And in penultima, sometimes the king isn't the real target, and attempting to capturing it destroys random other pieces instead.
by hinkley | 2025-05-29 19:09:54+00:00
I lived in a garden neighborhood for a time. I did a lot of work on our place and my partner and friends would praise me but all I could see was the weeds or the poor pruning job done by the previous owners.

There was a retired lady three blocks away who had by far the best garden in a half mile radius. It was amazing.

I lived there almost four years before I started noticing her weeds, her mistakes.

In a lot of things we can see other people’s flaws but miss our own. But when we make something, that situation seems to be reversed. What we make isn’t that special, and everyone else’s creations are so much better.
by jacob019 | 2025-05-29 19:10:00+00:00
A lot of quibbling here, wasn't sure where to reply. If you've built any models in PyTorch, then you know. Conceptually it is deterministic, a model trained using deterministic implementations of low level algorithms will produce deterministic results. And when you are optimizing the pipeline, it is common to do just that:

torch.manual_seed(0) random.seed(0) np.random.seed(0) torch.use_deterministic_algorithms(True)

But in practice that is too slow, we use nondeterministic implementations that run fast and loose with memory management and don't necessarily care about the order in which parallel operations return.
by ComputerGuru | 2025-05-29 19:10:06+00:00
You missed (or didn't address, at any rate) my point. For a phone where all audio channels are in between both ears (or even worse, held off to the right/left of both ears) with only a minute difference in the angle of the arc to each of the binaural inputs, convince me that you can reasonably distinguish between sounds emanating from different locations (facing the same direction - not at all like a speaker pointing out the side of each phone!!) at a rate statistically distinguishable from chance.
by p4bl0 | 2025-05-29 19:10:10+00:00
I'll add one thing: since April 2009 my website files are tracked using Git, which means I can go back to what it looked like at any point in time whenever I want (`git rev-list --count HEAD` gives me 2184 commits). It's been fun to show my students what my own website looked like when I was their age!
by minimaxir | 2025-05-29 19:10:16+00:00
Currently am testing this out (using the Replicate endpoint: https://replicate.com/black-forest-labs/flux-kontext-pro). Replicate also hosts "apps" with examples using FLUX Kontext for some common use cases of image editing: https://replicate.com/flux-kontext-apps

It's pretty good: quality of the generated images is similar to that of GPT-4o image generation if you were using it for simple image-to-image generations. Generation is speedy at about ~4 seconds per generation.

Prompt engineering outside of the examples used on this page is a little fussy and I suspect will evolve over time. Changing styles or specific aspects does indeed work, but the more specific you get, the more it tends to ignore the specifics.
by PaulHoule | 2025-05-29 19:10:22+00:00
Yeah but if you "don't think about what version of libc or java is in their image" either you will find out that your image cares or the programmer who comes along to maintain it will. At one job Docker seemed to give data scientists the superpower of finding a different broken Python image for every image they built, these would work OK in dev and test and then blow up in production.

My early history with Docker was terrible because it just didn't work for me because I had a slow ADSL connection and any attempt to download images would time out and fail. (I guess reliable downloads are a "call for prices" kind of feature) Later on working at an office with gigabit I found that Docker only increased build times by a factor of 2-10x depending on what I was doing.

I was wanting to build an image sorter last year and wanting to try the danbooru image board software, the git repository says just do

docker compose

and I get a bunch of incomprehensible error messages, turns out that the compose configuration is two versions old. Could I revert compose on my system to the old version? Maybe. Probably doesn't break anything running on my machine but I'd rather not find out. Could I update the configuration file? I guess. But my internet connection still isn't that fast and I could go through a lot of run-break-fix cycles just to learn "you can't get here from there". So I cut-and-pasted the framework code out of one of my other projects and coded a minimal product up in a weekend, then had to spend another weekend adding features I tried to get away with not implementing.
by benrutter | 2025-05-29 19:10:50+00:00
Yes, I think I'd agree. To make an analogy to computers though, some algorithms are much faster than others, and finding the right algorithm is a better route to effectiveness than throwing more CPU at a problem.

That said, there are obviously whole categories of problem that we can only solve, even with the best choice of programme, with a certain level of CPU.

Sorry if that example was a bit tenuous!
by Aurornis | 2025-05-29 19:10:53+00:00
I never would have understood this as a young, single person. Now that I have a family there are several times per year where we price out the cost of a solo ticket for one parent, the price of taking one or two kids, or the cost of all of us going for something. Having a quantity discount would absolutely tip the scales for us for certain trips.

People will look at this as penalizing single travelers and want everyone to have the lowest fare, but that’s not the real alternative. A flat fare would bring solo prices down and group rates up so the blended average is the same.
by cloudpushers | 2025-05-29 19:12:20+00:00
Ugh, such a good read as we enter an era where we kind of have to build interactions from first principals or else we'll be stuck with a clunky search bar and lackluster AI adoption.

Perhaps Nielsen's practices will enjoy a resurgence as it's easier to make personal sites for all sorts of different, non-commercial entities and happenings.
by r2_pilot | 2025-05-29 19:12:36+00:00
>free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion.

Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.
by legorobot | 2025-05-29 19:12:45+00:00
Definitely agree with this, I think ClickHouse can do a lot with joins if you don't implement them naively. Keeping the server up-to-date is a part of it too.

They've made strides in the last year or two to implement more join algorithms, and re-order your joins automatically (including whats on the "left" and "right" of the join, relating to performance of the algorithm).

Their release notes cover a lot of the highlights, and they have dedicated documentation regarding joins[1]. But we've made improvements by an order-of-magnitude before by just reordering our joins to align with how ClickHouse processes them.

[1]: https://clickhouse.com/docs/guides/joining-tables
by D_R_Farrell | 2025-05-29 19:13:35+00:00
Thanks so much!

It's been a challenge to find the right balance for this – on one hand you want to give people who know what code is an easy way to navigate their codebases and be more effective, and on the other hand you want to help people who have never coded before create something they really love.

The visual layer has a lot of polish left to do to be a perfect design tool experience, but we're getting there.

I think for most designers they don't love being limited by traditional web "structures" like flexbox, but that's also how things can get built and scale properly. AI is very good at generating flexbox styled websites but when a designer jumps-in to an AI generated website it's like picking up a complex project someone else has architected. If you know how websites work it isn't super intimidating, but if you don't then it can feel very overwhelming.

One of the main reasons we decided to not have layers and styles immediately visible on the left and right sides of the app was because people who have never jumped into a design tool mentioned they were overwhelmed with the UI. Moving these tools into a "secondary" interaction layer cleared up the interface but made it easy for pro-users to still find them.

I'm excited to keep refining this editor experience so when you're able to import projects you have all of the tools you'd expect from a visual editor for your codebase.
by devilbunny | 2025-05-29 19:13:41+00:00
Really heavy deliveries will be. A system that lets you specify a certain weight cutoff for location to deliver might be useful, but even then sheer quantities can be an issue.

I get anything valuable coming from a major delivery service (DHL, FedEx, UPS, US Postal Service) sent to my office. They're already stopping there (it's a hospital with plenty of doctors' offices in their attached tower, lots of stuff is delivered daily), someone can sign for it and lock it up. I have a key to get into my office whenever I need to, and if it's during the day I can borrow a cart or a dolly/hand truck to take it to my car. Can usually rustle up a spare cart even in the off hours. Done it for almost 20 years.

If it's a TV or something else large (appliances, furniture, etc.), it's going to be a custom delivery anyway, so I'll pick a time that I know I'll be home.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-05-29 19:13:57+00:00
Most GOP senators don't want the tariffs. It's just they're too scared of retaliation hurting their re-election chances (exhibit A: Cheney) if they defy Trump. It's easier to not challenge an Executive Order, which also puts the blame on Trump if people are unhappy, which they are, than it is to vote on the Tariffs at which point the Senate/House is responsible for the fiasco.
by 1659447091 | 2025-05-29 19:14:01+00:00
She did a peer-reviewed deep dive into the test design documentation [0] Stated in the second sentence of this article with the link.

Where she found:

>> According to policies buried in the documentation, the agency administering the tests adjusted their difficulty level every year.

She goes on to say that difficultly is increased. As shown in my original quotes of the article above.

I have not read her paper or the test design documents; but it appears she has and that she does have the evidence.

[0] https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2024.2415618
by hoakiet98 | 2025-05-29 19:14:10+00:00
Thanks for the kind words! We definitely want to restore the ability to use Cursor/Windsurf through SSH as soon as possible.

There is terminal access on the right of the bottom bar. It just has 1 CLI connection right now, along with the long runner server but you can run commands through there or through the AI.

Just merged a PR for that should be live in a few mins https://github.com/onlook-dev/onlook/pull/1963
by chillpenguin | 2025-05-29 19:14:13+00:00
This article is insulting. It is trying to paint the picture that all of us who go against the mainstream are deluding ourselves if we think it is anything more than the digital equivalent of wearing a leather jacket.

Very often mainstream stuff really is actually worse than obscure stuff. I don't have to explain this to the HN crowd, I'm sure.

The article is pretentious (which is ironic since it is arguing for adopting mainstream technology).
by broost3r | 2025-05-29 19:14:18+00:00
i've done this experiment 2 years in a row with my youngest kiddo as a STEM challenge in elementary school. i thought we got pretty close this year with using heavy duty sponges, paper plates, and a parachute, but was always operating under the assumption that the egg needs to be vertical. i'm excited to try again next year after reading this.

oh and at our school, they bring in a big bucket truck from the local power company and send the teachers up to the top with the devices and let them drop them :)
by hex4def6 | 2025-05-29 19:14:35+00:00
Hmm, interesting counterpoint.

I think both things can be simultaneously true. There are a million sub-cultures that can now exist, that are no longer tied to a geographic location. This is both good and bad. Good, insofar as if you're in the middle of Ohio in a 2000 person town, and really-really into model trains or whatever, you can find an online community that shares this. But I also think it's bad insofar as we've lost some sense of culture or commonality with our (geographic) neighbors.

But to the homogenization point; I still think within a specific sub-culture (sewing circles), you can have global homogenization. The sewing circle might new be global, on facebook and tiktok, instead of 10,000 insular hamlets. Is this bad/good? I'm not sure. There's nothing from stopping you creating a local facebook group. And in theory, good ideas can spread rather than be confined to a specific geographic group. But I can't help feeling that some independent thought and ways of thinking are lost through this globalization.
by ComputerGuru | 2025-05-29 19:14:44+00:00
&& in a shebang isn't portable, having more than one argument in a shebang isn't portable, subshell in a shebang isn't portable, semicolon in a shebang isn't portable, basename usage isn't portable, not littering the current working directory is important (it might not even be RW, or you might not have permissions to write to it), your usage won't work with symlinks or with the script added to $PATH, caching the compiled output is a nice speedup and reduces startup costs, correct (and optimal) cache invalidation is one of the known tricky problems in CS.

Shell scripts are ugly :)

(If you didn't mean to use them in a shebang but rather as the script body, that's fine but that wouldn't be possible without the polyglot syntax and #allow abuse I posted.)
by KronisLV | 2025-05-29 19:15:09+00:00
Doesn't seem like the thing with the best usability for me (how my eyes scan information, in that regard the old site would be better), but it does seem aesthetically different and kinda cool. Plus, good job on not putting a whole bunch of JS into the site and letting it actually perform well without making my CPU sad.

That said, https://taylor.town/android-chrome-512x512.png is about 225 KB and probably doesn't need to be quite that big. The first optimizer I found online turned it into a 55 KB image. There, this time I'm the nitpicky nerd, bwah.

Not to miss the point though: it's cool that people are making things that are different!
by schwartzworld | 2025-05-29 19:15:24+00:00
For me it's like having a junior developer work under me who knows APIs inside and out, but has no common sense about architecture. I like that I delegate tasks to them so that my brain can be free for other problems, but it makes my job much more review heavy than before. I put every PR through 3-4 review cycles before even asking my team for a review.
by hinkley | 2025-05-29 19:16:03+00:00
However you try to pad it there will end up being a hot spot where either the force is maximal or the shell is thinnest. So I think it makes sense to do the unprotected tests to see what the failure mode is for the egg and then design for that.

The neck is the weak point in a car crash. So we design cars and airbags and child seats to account for that.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-29 19:16:03+00:00
Your Google Images search indicates the original problem of models training on junk misinformation online. If AI scrapers are downloading every photo that's associated with "Model F Keyboard" like that, the models have no idea what is an IBM Model F, or its distinguishing characteristics, and what is some other company's, and what is misidentified.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IBM_Model_F_Keyb...

Specifying "IBM Model F keyboard" and placing it in quotation marks improves the search. But the front page of the search is tip-of-the-iceberg compared to whatever the model's scrapers ingested.

Eventually you may hit trademark protections. Reproducing a brand-name keyboard may be as difficult as simulating a celebrity's likeness.

I'm not even sure what my friends look like on Facebook, so it's not clear how an AI model would reproduce a brand-name keyboard design on request.
by perching_aix | 2025-05-29 19:16:13+00:00
There's no AI needed for that either. Just order on your phone, drive there, scan, machine dispenses your order and goodbye.

Much like how when you go to one of these places >>right now<< you just walk up to a kiosk, input your order, pay, then collect your order at the desk.

Couple more years and we'll rediscover that vending machines exist.
by zamalek | 2025-05-29 19:16:31+00:00
> hype for whatever reason

"I need others to buy into LLMs in order for my buy-in to make sense," i.e. network effects.[1]

> Most dot-com companies incurred net operating losses as they spent heavily on advertising and promotions to harness network effects to build market share or mind share as fast as possible, using the mottos "get big fast" and "get large or get lost". These companies offered their services or products for free or at a discount with the expectation that they could build enough brand awareness to charge profitable rates for their services in the future.

You don't have to go very far up in terms of higher order thinking to understand what's going on here. For example, think about Satya's motivations for disclosing Microsoft writing 30% of their code using LLMs. If this really was the case, wouldn't Microsoft prefer to keep this competitive advantage secret? No: Microsoft and all the LLM players need to drive hype, and thus mind share, in the hope that they become profitable at some point.

If "please" and "thank you" are incurring huge costs[2], how much is that LLM subscription actually going to cost consumers when the angel investors come knocking, and are consumers going to be willing to pay that?

I think a more valuable skill might be learning how to make do with local LLMs because who knows how many of these competitors will still be around in a few years.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble#Spending_tenden... [2]: https://futurism.com/altman-please-thanks-chatgpt
by xhevahir | 2025-05-29 19:17:25+00:00
This attitude is depressingly common in lots of professional, white-collar industries I'm afraid. I just came from the /r/law subreddit and was amazed at the kneejerk dismissal there of Dario Amodei's recent comments about legal work, and of those commenters who took them seriously. It's probably as much a coping mechanism as it is complacency, but, either way, it bodes very poorly for our future efforts at mitigating whatever economic and social upheaval is coming.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-05-29 19:17:32+00:00
And a barebones traditional CPU is a finite state machine plus random access memory. It teaches you mostly the same things about how you put together simple components into universal computation, while having programs that are far easier to comprehend.

And then for another perspective on computation, lambda calculus is very different and can broaden your thoughts. Then you could look at Turing machines and get some value, but niche value at that point. I wouldn't call it important if you already understand the very low level, and you should not use it as the model for teaching the very low level.
by iLemming | 2025-05-29 19:18:30+00:00
No, Doom is not a final product of some sort. Going back to my "kitchen" analogy, Doom is like a recipe book - it's great for some ideation (you can check for example what kind of things used in Python module and build your own, or extend existing, 'official' module). It offers you some modularity - Doom-based configs are great for breaking down into reusable components. Doom's core also contains a lot of very nifty macros that allow you to reduce otherwise unavoidable boilerplate. Other than that, Doom is just the regular, good old Emacs - you still can do everything you could do before, with perhaps some better structure and code ergonomics.

Doom may become obsolete only if it keeps partitioning into separate packages, e.g., doom-modeline started as a core component of Doom, now it's a separate package. Similarly, nothing really preventing anyone from forking other core parts of Doom into separate packages.

Also, evil-mode keys are optional, anyone can use Doom without using vim keys, there's still good value in doing that.