MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by karanveer | 2025-05-22 08:50:44+00:00
Hey thanks! To answer few of your points: 1. If I understand rightly, If you finish the typing, there is an option to share that pops up, then in that it takes your wpm and accuracy and sets a pre written little paragraph. You can share on X or Threads, or directly Copy the text and then paste it [I've provided the copy button].

2. I could, I don't know if it would fit in to its simplicity, I'm trying to set this apart for beginners especially because some other tools are too intimidating to start with.. you could help me understand this feature more. Maybe I can work around this.. This is a good one though, I will have a look into this.

3. Initially it was 0%, but I thought I'd do it 100% and as the user types it remains 100%, until he makes a typo and it drops. Like a minus minus effect from 100, so the type will try to keep it at 100. This is just personal opinion tbh.

Make sense?
by hatefulmoron | 2025-05-22 08:52:31+00:00
I don't think the length you're talking about is that much of an issue. As you say, depending on how you measure it, LLMs are better at remaining accurate over a long span of text.

The issue seems to be more in the intelligence department. You can't really leave them in an agent-like loop with compiler/shell output and expect them to meaningfully progress on their tasks past some small number of steps.

Improving their initial error-free token length is solving the wrong problem. I would take less initial accuracy than a human but equally capable of iterating on their solution over time.
by seansh | 2025-05-22 08:52:34+00:00
The frontend is in pure HTML and CSS. But we can't build the server with HTML and CSS. These are markup languages. We still need a programming language. Now of course you could pick something with a thinner runtime like C instead of js on node.js, but there's no escaping a runtime.

Frameworks and runtimes though very similar technically, are different conceptually. Frameworks dictate a structure (a framwork) for how code is written (think React components) whereas runtimes are more concerned with letting you run the code and interface with the underlying platform (think libc).
by mckirk | 2025-05-22 08:52:35+00:00
I'd suggest looking at the BTC chart with logarithmic scaling. I'm not saying it won't happen, but you can distinctly see how the exponential growth has greatly slowed down over time, so the move from 100k to a million is definitely not the same in terms of momentum and likelihood as the one from 10k to 100k.

(Of course that was under the previous 'house rules'; who knows what announcement will come out of the White House tomorrow.)
by westoncb | 2025-05-22 08:52:39+00:00
The trick to this is you've got to talk to them and share this information in the same way. I can give an example. These days my main workflow is as follows: if I have some big feature/refactor/whatever I'm going to work on I'll just start talking to o3 about it essentially as if it was a coworker and (somewhat painstakingly) paste in relevant source files it needs for context. We'll have a high-level discussion about what it is we're trying to build and how it relates to the existing code until I get the sense o3 has a clear and nuanced understanding (these discussions tend to sharpen my own understanding as well). Then, I'll ask o3 to generate an implementation plan that describes what needs to happen across the codebase in order for whatever it is to be realized. I'll then take that and hand it off to Codex, which might spend 10min executing shell commands to read source, edit files, test, etc. and then I've got a PR ready, which sometimes takes a bit more manual editing, and other times is perfectly ready to merge.

What you're saying is true RE them needing rich context, too—but this isn't a fundamental limitation, it's just an aspect of what it takes to work with them effectively. There's definitely a learning curve but once you've got it down it's not only very powerful but, for me anyway, a more enjoyable headspace to occupy than lots of lower level manual editing.
by keiferski | 2025-05-22 08:53:23+00:00
The fact that most ai art is generic garbage just reflects the lack of imagination most people have when making it. Sad but true. The actual tools themselves are incredible.

And I meant myself thinking and analyzing a piece of writing with the help of ChatGPT, not ChatGPT itself “thinking.” (Although I frankly think this is somewhat of an irrelevant point, if the machine is thinking.) Because I have absolutely gained tons of new insights and knowledge by asking ChatGPT to analyze an idea and suggest similar concepts.
by 2rsf | 2025-05-22 08:53:44+00:00
Answering from a customer point of view- sensitive, regulated or simply old fashioned industries will want to avoid using SaaS for sensitive material like credentials. I think that the main challenge I faced, again as a customer, is support and maintenance- your software will run on an endless variety of platforms using different versions of it by people with varying competence levels and you'll need to support all of them
by pjmlp | 2025-05-22 08:54:20+00:00
They even created Kotlin to help sell InteliJ licenses, cleary they are having an adoption problem outside Android.

"The next thing is also fairly straightforward: we expect Kotlin to drive the sales of IntelliJ IDEA. We’re working on a new language, but we do not plan to replace the entire ecosystem of libraries that have been built for the JVM. So you’re likely to keep using Spring and Hibernate, or other similar frameworks, in your projects built with Kotlin. And while the development tools for Kotlin itself are going to be free and open-source, the support for the enterprise development frameworks and tools will remain part of IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate, the commercial version of the IDE. And of course the framework support will be fully integrated with Kotlin."

-- https://blog.jetbrains.com/kotlin/2011/08/why-jetbrains-need...
by killerstorm | 2025-05-22 08:54:43+00:00
Full attention to 1M context is nonsense. Yes, Gemini can do needle-in-haystack, but do you actually need to feed 1M tokens to find one thing? People who have a lot of experience with using LLM for code generation claim that performance degrades past certain point, even if all context is somewhat-relevant.

What we need is not "long context", we need memory: ability for LLM to address datasets of arbitrary size.

RAG has bad reputation but there's a myriad of different ways for doing RAG. Say, "agentic" tool calls which fetch specific data is essentially a form of RAG. But it's cool because it's not called RAG, right?

Anyway, this definitely requires some innovation, but I doubt "longer context" is exactly what we need.
by pishpash | 2025-05-22 08:54:48+00:00
You are having low expectations here. People used to enter machine code on switches and punched paper tape, so yes they made sure it worked the first time. Later, people had code reviews by marking up printouts of code, and software got sent out in boxes that couldn't be changed until the next year.

Programmers who "iterate" buggy shit for 10 rounds until they get it right are a post-Google push-update phenomenon.
by strogonoff | 2025-05-22 08:55:50+00:00
> We're so deep into this delusion that it's so very tempting to anthropomorphize this ersatz stream of consciousness as being 'thought'. I remain unconvinced that it's anything of the sort.

Coincidentally, I’m listening to an interesting episode[0] of QAA that goes through various instances of how people (sometimes educated and technically literate) demonstrate mental inability to adequately handle ML-based chatbot tech. The podcast mostly focuses on extreme cases, but I think far too many people are succumbing to more low-key delusions.

As an example, even on this forum people constantly point out that unlicensed works should be allowed in ML training datasets because if humans are free to learn and be inspired then so should be the model—it’s crazy to apply the notions of freedom and human rights to a [commercially operated] software tool, yet here we are. Considering how handy it is for tool’s operator, hardware suppliers, and whoever owns respective stocks, some of this confusion is probably financially motivated, but even if half of it is genuine it’d be alarming.

[0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/qaa-podcast/id14282093...
by fransje26 | 2025-05-22 08:56:01+00:00
Great tool that has been really helpful in helping me find unexpected bottlenecks in the codebases I've been working on.

It's easy to use, and pairs beautifully with the unintrusive perf tool, which makes the combination a joy to use.

And, if combined with a codebase opened in QtCreator, you can click on a hotspot in the flamegraph, and it will bring you automagically to the correct file and line in QtCreator, without any explicit linking required between the two programs. I discovered that feature accidentally, and the fact that it just worked seamlessly really impressed me. (Tested on a Debian-based Linux).

A big thanks to KDAB for making this tool available to us!
by alexisread | 2025-05-22 08:56:06+00:00
Looks nice, but it should really say single RGB camera AND a boatload of processing power. TLDR the camera feeds 1280x720 images at 120fps to a PC (with graphics card). While you could reduce this to an on-chip processing block, it will also have to deal with people looking away halfway through typing etc. which adds to the processing overhead, and requires integration with the headset (6 axis sensors etc.).

IRL this has been somewhat tried with the Humane AI pin, with gestures, less than instantaneous response is noticeable, so latency has to be paramount.

Don't mean to rain on the parade as it's a nice piece of work, but comparing to say chording (low cpu requirements, better accuracy, faster, but you have to learn how to chord) shows the different tradeoffs.
by nsteel | 2025-05-22 08:56:16+00:00
> These “AI is a gimmick that does nothing” articles

I don't think that's an accurate summary of this article. Are you basing that just on the title, or do you fundamentally disagree with the author here?

> We call something a gimmick, the literary scholar Sianne Ngai points out, when it seems to be simultaneously working too hard and not hard enough. It appears both to save labor and to inflate it, like a fanciful Rube Goldberg device that allows you to sharpen a pencil merely by raising the sash on a window, which only initiates a chain of causation involving strings, pulleys, weights, levers, fire, flora, and fauna, including an opossum. The apparatus of a large language model really is remarkable. It takes in billions of pages of writing and figures out the configuration of words that will delight me just enough to feed it another prompt. There’s nothing else like it.
by mattmanser | 2025-05-22 08:58:36+00:00
I've actually noticed this two days ago with some bluetooth headphones and my phone.

The volume control on my android phone was acting just like this when my headphones were connected. When changing the volume with the phone only a small section of the bottom quarter of the volume control actually made a difference, but the volume controls on the headphone themselves were acting "normally".

Usually the phone volume is fine, it only screws up on bluetooth devices (my speakers + my headphones). I have to use the volume control on the device itself to have any good control.

This explains the weird behaviour, the phone volume changes are being sent linearly, but the headphone/speaker settings are correct and being set logarithmically.

i.e. somewhere a developer working on the bluetooth integration didn't understand the difference, screwed up and never tested it. That it's happening to both my Edifier speakers and my cheapo headphones probably means it's on the stock Android end (it's a pixel phone).
by dns_snek | 2025-05-22 08:58:47+00:00
You haven't addressed any points the author has made, we don't need to have "experience" in a field to know that ambiguous units are ridiculous and bad.

When I'm buying a piece of string for my garden, I don't need to find an agricultural textbook to know whether "10 meters" in agriculture is the same as "10 meters" in engineering, and whether the definition of "meters" depends on whether the string is made out of cotton or polyester. The same is not true for "decibels". People seem to assume that we're too stupid to understand logarithms, we're not.
Show HN: Projct.dev – A link-in-bio tool to showcase your side projects
by ajoshu | 2025-05-22 08:59:26+00:00
Hey HN!

I built [projct.dev](https://projct.dev) as a simple, developer-first link-in-bio tool for showcasing side projects.

Most link-in-bio tools are bloated or geared toward influencers. This one is clean, minimal, and made specifically for makers and indie hackers who just want to show off their work.

Features: - Mobile-first responsive layout - Realtime preview while editing - Click and view analytics - Github contributions - Super lightweight

Would love your feedback, ideas, or just to hear what you think. Happy to answer any questions on this early release!
by mike_hearn | 2025-05-22 09:00:34+00:00
Google pay JetBrains nothing for Android Studio. Source: I talked to them at KotlinConf about it. Why would they? Do you see Google taking out huge contracts with Oracle for Java, or Red Hat for Linux? Google hardly even contributes to upstream projects, let alone funds them via fat support contracts. They prefer to develop everything in house, acquire outright or maintain their own forks if that isn't viable.

Google are members of the Kotlin Foundation. I guess as part of that they contribute towards the cost of the yearly conference. They've also generously open sourced some of the frameworks they built for Android. But go review the commit logs for IntelliJ or Kotlin and you'll see they're nearly all JB employees.

As for the rest, words have meaning. "Brand value" means people are willing to pay for things associated with that brand. "Investment" means something that can potentially yield ROI. Something given away for free with no supporting business model isn't an investment, it's charity.

The internet is littered with bitrotting projects that were treated as charity and then abandoned when the authors got tired of it. Apache fills up with more every year. The right comparison is thus not with Delphi (which made Borland a ton of money and is still on sale today via Embarcadero), but with NetBeans and Eclipse, both codebases abandoned by their former sponsors when the novelty value of having lots of users wore off.

> I might be a vocal minority here, but it keeps nothing but resentment in me.

OK, so don't use it then. Kotlin, at least in the JVM or JS variants, isn't the sort of language that requires a huge level of buy-in. I started using it before Kotlin 1.0 even came out, used it for the next decade after that, and was happy with it at every point. Back in those days the community was tiny but that doesn't matter due to its excellent JVM interop. At no point did I ever have any fear other than JetBrains not making enough money with it and defunding it. Fortunately, being a smart company, they haven't fallen into that trap.
by jabl | 2025-05-22 09:01:01+00:00
Yes, and yes.

The kernel parts of MOFED are largely backports of the latest and greatest upstream kernel drivers to the various distro kernels their customers actually run. (The non-kernel parts of MOFED is mostly open source but does contain some proprietary special sauce on top, like IIRC SHARP support isn't available in FOSS.). The HPC community does tend to want to use the latest RDMA drivers as those are critical for at scale performance.

For Lustre, the client driver was upstreamed into staging, where it sat AFAIU largely unused for a few years until it was ripped out again. The problem was that Lustre developers didn't adopt an upstream-first development approach, and thus the in-kernel driver was basically a throw over the fence fork that nobody cared about. I think there is an effort to try again and hopefully adopt an upstream-first approach, remains to be seen whether it'll succeed.
by woolion | 2025-05-22 09:01:33+00:00
It's unfortunate that Quanta links are so popular, when they include so much pseudo-poetic fluff around the mathematics. Below there's an entire thread to dismiss a misconception introduced by the quanta article.

"I think it is very intuitive that more space beats the pants off of more time." (poster is absolutely right) The The article say "Until now, the only known algorithms for accomplishing certain tasks required an amount of space roughly proportional to their runtime, and researchers had long assumed there’s no way to do better.", which is interpreted as that there's a proportional relation between time and space. However, a quick look at the complexity hierarchy would never suggest such a thing. Reading more carefully, it says "known algorithms" for "certain tasks", but then where do you get a general intuition from such a particular statement?
by mrnoone | 2025-05-22 09:03:02+00:00
There are two key differences:

(1) ACE leverages hardware virtualization support, including an MMU, to enable confidential virtual machines. In contrast, Keystone is designed for simpler processors that rely on just machine/supervisor/user privilege levels and physical memory protection (PMP), making it more suitable for process-based enclaves—similar to architectures like Komodo or Intel SGX. In that sense, ACE is conceptually closer to Intel TDX, but tailored for a different domain: embedded systems rather than cloud infrastructure.

(2) In ACE, the architecture and code are simplified to facilitate formal verification.
by KeplerBoy | 2025-05-22 09:03:06+00:00
We have a unit for that. It's dBm and very easy to grasp. 0 dBm is 1 mW, every 10 dBm is an order of magnitude more (10 dBm = 10 mW).

dB is only confusing if people omit which quantities they are relating. If it's clear like in the case of dBm which relate to 1 mW, it's an awesome tool.
by keiferski | 2025-05-22 09:03:12+00:00
Not sure how that definition of a gimmick applies to what I wrote. Labeling AI tools as gimmicks would imply that they both save labor and inflate it and therefore offer no real fundamental improvements or value.

In my own experience, that is absolute nonsense, and I have gotten immense amounts of value from it. Most of the critical arguments (like the link) are almost always from people that use them as basic chatbots without any sort of deeper understanding or exploration of the tools.
by threeseed | 2025-05-22 09:03:18+00:00
MongoDB is a $2b/year revenue company growing at 20% y/y. JSON stores are not going anywhere and it's an essential tool for dealing in data where you have no control over the schema or you want to do it in the application layer.

And the only "battle" is one you've invented in your head. People who deal in data for a living just pick the right data store for the right data schema.
by tialaramex | 2025-05-22 09:04:52+00:00
Sure, this already happens today as in practice pre-standard ECH is deployed, so client says "Hi I'm calling some.boring.example [encrypted: Actually clown-porn.example]" and this useless middlebox cannot decrypt the inner message so it retrieves the some.boring.example certificate but the client's encrypted connection reaches clown-porn.example which may have a different certificate.

For many years, long before TLS 1.3 the RFC explains how to do this properly, obviating the problem, but that's very expensive because you need to TLS proxy every single connection, you can impose oversight by - literally - adding an actual oversight layer, which your users can also see you did. The popular middlebox products say they're doing two things, they're cheaper (maybe you buy their $100k product instead of a $100M solution) and they're less "intrusive" (ie you needn't tell your users that you're spying on them)

In reality they're ineffective, which is why the RFC says not to do this - but they can either outright lie or hide this fact in an asterisked disclaimer somewhere, and most of their customers don't care whether it actually works, they want to tick a box.
by sparklingdata | 2025-05-22 09:05:30+00:00
Well, remote work brings multiple advantages, to remote workers but also to employers:

* companies offering flexibility will attract the best talent

* 47% of businesses noticed increased productivity levels amongst employees who work remotely (tech.co)

* in an inflation-affected economy remote work means lower office-related utilities' costs for companies (16% of companies operate fully remote, without a physical office - Forbes 2024; this gives them a competitive advantage over their competition)

More relevant, interesting stats re: remote jobs, are available here:

https://www.workbeyond.io/remote_work_advantages/

https://www.workbeyond.io/remote_jobs_market_stats/

The stats on workbeyond.io are based on a sizable remote jobs dataset.
by herculity275 | 2025-05-22 09:06:04+00:00
> even people that some people decry as bad and terrible people (for example Elon Musk) still can make amazing leaders

None of the leaders in this conversation are good people. Elon's controversies are way past the point of "some people decry" (why even use a phrasing this convoluted unless you just want to signal that you don't agree with it?) and firmly in "lots of great people wouldn't touch it with a pole". Part of leadership is creating a safe work environment and shielding your companies/brands from unnecessary drama, and Elon has done an absolutely abysmal job at it lately.
by DiskoHexyl | 2025-05-22 09:06:56+00:00
With the number of Steam Decks sold estimated at 3-4 million, and the number of monthly active Steam users being around 130 million, I think it's safe to say that 0.21% does not represent SteamOS install base. As far as I know, SteamOS doesn't show as Arch, but rather as its own thing
by SerCe | 2025-05-22 09:08:24+00:00
The previous JEP 450 [1] has a lot more implementation details for those who are interested.

> They have been tested at Oracle by running the full JDK test suite. They have also been tested at Amazon by hundreds of services in production, most of them using backports of the feature to JDK 21 and JDK 17.

One of the underappreciated perks of working on platform teams in large (and very large in the case of Amazon) companies is that you've got a playground to see and quantify the impact of your performance work that few others have.

[1]: https://openjdk.org/jeps/450
by nuredini | 2025-05-22 09:09:10+00:00
Do you mean that there aren't that many critically-acclaimed games nowadays (relative the the number of games coming out) because there aren't enough reviewers? I can't really think of many great, recent games that haven't had enough reviews or the attention they deserved. Sure, that might be some cases; but, in general, it just feels like we don't read more positive reviews because we're not getting that many great games.

I think that if the number of reviewers were to increase, the ratio between critically-acclaimed games and the total number of games coming out would still be very unimpressive.
by jrflowers | 2025-05-22 09:09:26+00:00
I think it’s silly to confuse aesthetic preference with the difference between good and bad faith argumentation. Like if you insist that someone painstakingly take the time and effort to convince you that they don’t have an opinion on a topic while trying to convey their opinion about a topic, that’s so absurd that it itself borders on a bad faith request.

Also my original gripe was very clear. “Are you trying to convince yourself?” indicates that the author didn’t believe what they wrote. And your reasoning here for mentioning that is that they wrote it. It is a no-win scenario in which another person literally couldn’t hold an opinion that doesn’t conform to your aesthetic. That is insane!