MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-05-26 02:07:11+00:00
> As for climates, there are places that see very little difference in temperature, and definitely not the 'nice 0 – 100' range that Americans claim.

That's not really the point.

0° F: It's cold outside. 100° F: It's hot outside.

0° C: It's cold outside but not really that cold. 100° C: Dead.

0 K: Dead. 100 K: Dead.

These things are the case for humans regardless of whether you live in a place that actually gets cold or hot outside.
by nyarlathotep_ | 2025-05-26 02:08:17+00:00
> you cannot replace them by an army of code monkeys with LLMs and expect good software.

"Good" software only matters in narrow use cases--look at how much money and how many contracts companies like Deloitte and Accenture make/have.

Sure, you can't "vibe" slop your way to a renderer for a AAA title, but the majority of F500s have no conception of quality and do not care nor know any "better."
by StillBored | 2025-05-26 02:08:19+00:00
This is what happens when your population isn't mathematically educated enough to be able to figure out how to plan a defined benefit pension, and there are politicians who are actively trying to destroy a social safety net.

A bit of playing with chatgpt will dump the formulas required and even solve them for a given set of constraints. Basically one takes the average inflation adjusted of an investment vehicle, then solves for what percentage of income for a given timeframe, in order to return a portion of a persons income for another timeframe. Ex: given say the US stock market average return for the past 100 years, one wants to work for 30 years and retire for 30 years with a 70% of the final income, it works out to 8-9% of a persons income. Then shift the numbers to 40/20 years, cap the maximum payout at say the median income, and wow a pension system that grows faster than the rate of inflation, provides for a retirement age of ~60 and the percentage drops to ~5% or less.

People complaining about demographic trends are buying into the idea that the input dollars have to equal the output dollars, and its dumb, and isn't even the way the social security trust fund in the USA works. Which shows that its possible to ride out population bubbles, much less actually providing a long term savings vehicle that if it were run correctly would eventually be indefinitely solvent. But at least in the USA one party has consistently stood in the way for the past 40 years of solving some of these financial problems, and in fact seems to make them worse by flattening the progressive nature of the federal taxes through tax cuts which overwhelmingly target the groups most able to absorb higher tax rates. And the result are cases where single individuals single handily hold 2% of the wealth of their entire generation and the country looks like its falling apart and there is artificial scarcity everywhere.

PS: Now there are a number of ways this breaks, mostly around cases where inflation is eating up most of the compounding growth, but most sovereign governments are fully capable of solving these problems if they choose to.
by tiou | 2025-05-26 02:08:21+00:00
In deep learning, gradient descent often gets stuck in local optima. While these points may not be perfect, they represent workable solutions given the current landscape. Similarly, existing “wheels” in software development are like these local optima—well-established solutions that work well in many cases but might not fit every unique scenario.

Reinventing the wheel can be seen as an attempt to escape these local optima, exploring new approaches that better suit specific needs or constraints. This process involves effort and risk, just like tweaking optimization parameters in training, but it can lead to innovative and more tailored solutions.

So, rather than blindly accepting existing solutions, sometimes it’s worth challenging them and trying to find a different path—just as in deep learning, where escaping local optima can improve model performance.
by cerlo_team | 2025-05-26 02:08:27+00:00
We’ve been working on a lightweight tool to help small teams and individuals manage and publish content across multiple social platforms — currently focusing on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok.

Most tools we’ve tried are either too bloated, too expensive, or limit you to one or two accounts per platform. We’re aiming for something simpler: connect multiple accounts (free up to 3 per platform), schedule posts, organize media, and view basic performance stats — no AI or calendar features yet.

Still early, but the core workflow is live and usable. Would love to hear how others here handle multi-platform content publishing, especially if you’re doing it without a full-time team.
by moozilla | 2025-05-26 02:08:32+00:00
Here's an attempt at cleaning it up with Gemini 2.5 Pro: https://rentry.org/nyznvoy5

I just pasted the YouTube link into AI Studio and gave it this prompt if you want to replicate:

reformat this talk as an article. remove ums/ahs, but do not summarize, the context should be substantively the same. include content from the slides as well if possible.
by BrandiATMuhkuh | 2025-05-26 02:10:38+00:00
An agent based simulator with LLMs. When I did my PhD in 2016 I used Agent Based Simulations to predict how to influence humans with chat agents on a large scale. The main criticisms with such simulations is always the realism of the agent (and network).

Now, with LLMs, this got much simpler. As LLMs are really good at mimicking humans.

The first application will be to simulate a LinkedIn post against your own (virtual) followers. I grab your actual LinkedIn followers, "turn" each one into an LLM and see how they react.
by makeitdouble | 2025-05-26 02:11:01+00:00
> AI has help me refactor things where I normally couldn’t.

Reading "couldn't" as, you would technically not be able to do it because of the complexity or intricacy of the problem, how did you guarantee that the change offered by the AI made proper sense and didn't leave out critical patterns that were too complex for you to detect ?

Your comment makes it sound like you're now dependent on AI to refactor again if dire consequences are detected way down the line (in a few months for instance), and the problem space is already just not graspable by a mere human. Which sounds really bad if that's the case.
by ggorlen | 2025-05-26 02:11:11+00:00
Here's a sampling of the projects I've found on glitch. Many great projects will be lost. Are there any preservation efforts being undertaken?

https://magnet-caper.glitch.me/

https://cave-in.glitch.me/

https://hydra-book.glitch.me/

https://fishdraw.glitch.me/

https://generative-placeholders.glitch.me/

https://spades.glitch.me/

https://spurious-soup.glitch.me/

https://likelike.glitch.me/

https://chordal-ps.glitch.me/

https://purrdata.glitch.me/

https://tempeh.glitch.me/

https://dither-cam.glitch.me/

https://conways-webcam.glitch.me/

https://doodle-jump-html.glitch.me/

https://fragmatic-glsl.glitch.me/

https://glitch.com/@potch

https://glitch.com/@PatrickWeaver

https://glitch.com/@ggorlen/my-stuff
by enumjorge | 2025-05-26 02:11:54+00:00
> The primary reason people buy Expressive Animator is its high quality

You keep talking past people.

The feedback they're sharing is very simple. It's not super clear from your sales copy if my purchase gets me access to all updates forever, or if those are limited to the current major version. The way you're intending it to work is simple, yes, but your sales copy doesn't reflect that.

It seems like an easily solvable problem, tweak your sales copy to clarify, but instead you keep digging your heels. Fine, it's your company. I'm not a lawyer, but generally I'd be worried about making a bunch of sales if its not clear to my customers what exactly their buying. I don't get why you'd take such a chance when the fix is so simple, but again, it's your company.
by afthonos | 2025-05-26 02:12:52+00:00
And you, also, can claim no one can find 69 year-old they like to work with to make a silly argument.

It’s not that your (implied, guessed-at-by-me) idea is wrong on its face. It’s that you choose to (1) imply it, (2) in a snarky way that is insulting (even if true), and then when someone claimed a counter-example, you immediately fell back on made-up numbers for why you wouldn’t have to display the slightest curiosity as to how this supposed impossibility came to be.

You assume they’re lying? Why should anyone think better of you? Anyone can lie on the internet.
by haiku2077 | 2025-05-26 02:13:07+00:00
Converting my home server from Docker + Docker Compose to Podman + systemd. (The server runs self-hosting for my movies, TV, ebooks, comics and photos, networked to my other devices via Tailscale).

The DevEx isn't quite as easy, but I'm very happy with the final result. I don't have to run the overhead of a Docker Engine anymore, the network policy is far simpler to write and audit, and I can use the same logging tools for both containerized and non-containerized services.

The main hurdle has been file permissions for the mounted volumes for my data; Podman is rootless by default, which means you _should_ build your containers to run as non-root UIDs/GIDs and map them onto host UIDs and GIDs, then grant permissions for those host users and groups to access your data volumes. In practice, the easiest path is usually to run Podman in rootful mode, which is not a best security practice but avoids the difficult-to-troubleshoot file permission errors if you don't do the UID/GID mapping correctly.

However, unless you are really trying to optimize for overhead/performance, you should probably use k3s.
by delta_p_delta_x | 2025-05-26 02:13:40+00:00
> 0° C: It's cold outside but not really that cold.

> These things are the case for humans

Who says so?

0 °C is very cold by many people's standards. About half the human population lives within the tropics. In fact I'd like to see Americans walk around in the UK wearing just a T-shirt and bermudas when it's barely above freezing, and insist 'it's not really that cold, it's only 32 °F'.
by cvoss | 2025-05-26 02:14:22+00:00
Really?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43569009

> Blockchain is a perfect, transparent trustless global ledger that can't be hacked, so it's a misnomer to characterise these transactions as "cheating", "crimes" or "theft".

> What laws are a North Korean subject to that they have broken? Who decides when a transaction was cheating or stealing without a central authority and enforcer?

> To add to the other comments: do you really have a right to whatever it is that the bits unlocked by that key represent? Who granted you that? AFAICT, it's the systems running the blockchain that grants you that, and it's not governed by any contract outside the blockchain.

> I'm sorry, on the Blockchain we don't recognize legacy concepts like dead-tree nation state laws or ancient superstitions purporting to define morality. The future is all about registering ownership information in digital ledgers.

> I thought this was one of crypto's primary use cases? A kind of "anything goes, anything you can get away with is allowed" sort of approach.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43681658

> He did not steal anything. He beat the fund (Indexed Finance) at their own game. He has not stolen anybody's password, has not modified DeFI code - simply executed a set of financial transactions according to the rules (expressed as DeFI smart contracts) and profited from it.

> This. If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.

> Yup. Exactly. "The code is law". Well, sometimes you learn you're not as good at code as you thought you were.

> If what is written on the blockchain is not the law in the context of anything involving blockchains and DeFi, then the whole idea of blockchains and decentralized finance is pointless.

> My personal belief is that this was not fraud and "Code is Law" works.

> Court was outside its jurisdiction here. The fact that the case went forward shows that he was about to be railroaded by corrupt authorities.
by Aeris2025 | 2025-05-26 02:14:30+00:00
In recent years, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has been astonishing. Many companies emphasize “technological neutrality,” insisting that AI is merely a tool — its morality dependent on the user’s intent. But I believe this view is overly simplistic, even dangerous. AI is not just a hammer, nor is it a pair of scissors. Its destructive power far surpasses that of a firearm. If guns require strict regulation by law, then why should AI — an even more powerful force — be allowed to develop with virtually no oversight? AI is not a neutral tool — it is a system shaped by choices and biases People often say, “Technology isn’t good or bad; it depends on how it’s used.” But AI differs from traditional tools. It learns, infers, imitates human behavior, and responds based on datasets and algorithms chosen by developers. These responses are not neutral — they reflect the values, assumptions, and blind spots embedded in the system’s design. In short: AI is a mirror, but it reflects a distorted reality. When a system can generate suggestions, classify people, and decide who gains access to resources, it is no longer a passive tool — it becomes a quasi-decision maker. Such systems must not be exempt from regulation. AI’s destructive potential runs deeper than we think Guns can take lives, but AI can destroy truth. It can make disinformation appear credible, make scams sound like trusted friends, and render people unable to tell fact from fiction. This is not science fiction — it is the reality we are already living in. What’s more frightening is that this destruction often occurs quietly — with no trace, no noise, and no clear act of violence. Society can fall apart in silence. Technology cannot evade legal responsibility The current model of AI deployment is largely based on the logic: “The user issued the command, the AI responded, the company bears no responsibility.” But this is a deliberate evasion of accountability. If a user instructs AI to retrieve private data or to aid in manipulative behavior, even if the company didn’t initiate these actions, its system still executed them. Ethically, this matters. Legally, it should too. What we need is a new “technological contract” Technology should not stop progressing. But if we are to use AI, we must first acknowledge its unprecedented power. Here is what we need: Transparent development and audit mechanisms Mandatory disclosure of data sources, training processes, and systemic biases Clear legal boundaries for high-risk applications Public understanding that AI is not magic — it is a force that can shape the very structure of society Between technological advancement and human dignity, what we need is not blind acceptance, but conscious choice.
by bigyabai | 2025-05-26 02:14:51+00:00
It's funny, looking at a lineup of people like "Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk" makes me realize exactly what my calling is in life. I want to make things for the people and democratize knowledge for the world. I want to design and invent because it delights me, not to impress others or to eke out the most potential profit. I want to stand by righteous principles and decline work that I'm unfit to assume. If my service cannot benefit all mankind, I should feel little motive to complete it.

Benjamin Franklin personally filed no patents during his lifetime. Perhaps that's why he's fondly remembered in an age when Steve Jobs' grave gathers with dust.
by jdietrich | 2025-05-26 02:15:11+00:00
Ticket sales companies and scalpers are holding the bag for everyone else.

It is extremely convenient for artists, promoters and venues that ticketing sites will tack on a bunch of extra fees, take the blame for pushing up the price of tickets, then share out most of that extra cash to everyone else in the chain.

Scalpers are effectively providing financing for the rest of the industry - it's obviously preferable to get paid for the entire tour on the day it's announced, rather than having to bear the cashflow risks yourself. There is of course absolutely nothing stopping a promoter from reserving some proportion of tickets to be sold directly to secondary resellers at substantially above face value, or on an agreed profit-sharing basis.
by protocolture | 2025-05-26 02:15:46+00:00
Recent example.

Trying to get some third party hardware working with raspi

The hardware provider provides 2 separate code bases with separate documentation but only supports the latest one.

I literally had to force feed the newer code base into ChatGPT, and then feed in working example code to get it going, else it constantly reference the wrong methods.

If I just kept going Code / output / repeat it would maybe have stumbled on the answer but it was way off.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-05-26 02:15:58+00:00
> If you can't monkey-patch the getDate function with a mock in a testing context because your language won't allow it, that's a language smell, not a pattern smell.

Not so fast. Constraints like "no monkeypatching allowed" are part of what make it possible to reason about code at an abstract level, i.e., without having to understand in detail every control path that could possibly have run before. Allowing monkeypatching at the language level means discarding that useful reasoning tool.

I'm not saying that "no monkeypatching allowed" is always ideal, but it is a tradeoff.

(Consider why so many languages have something like a "const" modifier, which purely restricts what you can do with the object in question. The restriction reduces what you can do with it, but increases what you know about it.)
by sunrabbit | 2025-05-26 02:17:05+00:00
I haven’t had much time to polish or refine this myself, so it might look rough around the edges to you. But the core issue remains unchanged.

Setting up MCP is tedious and verbose. Isn’t there a way to group the MCP servers we want in one place?

So, I built a small library that bundles MCP servers together in one place.

If this somehow gets some attention or hype, someone else might build a better version. And honestly, I’d be totally fine with that.

There is one structural limitation in this library, though: It’s difficult to support servers that deviate from the MCP schema — for example, ones that require env input via CLI.

Thanks for reading.
by lern_too_spel | 2025-05-26 02:18:07+00:00
> I’d like to start by saying “think for two seconds” is not a respectful way to communicate.

I'm assuming the readers here have enough technological sophistication to understand the problem in two seconds. This is not the case among general YouTube audiences being fooled by crypto grifters.

> Do I need fraud mitigation and insurance to buy a coffee or groceries?

Do you want to be on the hook for somebody else buying coffee and groceries on your dime? Most people don't. Thus, fraud mitigation.

> That’s a very broad statement about a lot of people highly regarded in traditional finance.

That's assuming that those "highly regarded" people are fooled by crypto grifters instead of profiting off the fools.
by mckirk | 2025-05-26 02:18:54+00:00
I'd argue that just because LLMs only reproduce patterns they have seen, this does not mean they are incapable of invention. It is possible that, if they manage to replicate the data at a deep enough level, that they start to replicate the underlying reasoning process itself, which means they could definitely be capable of putting together different parts of a puzzle to come up with something you could call an 'invention' that was not in their training data.
by lwo32k | 2025-05-26 02:19:06+00:00
The moment a country/central bank rolls out an interest-bearing CBDC with an AI that taps into centralized credit data to issue small loans, *most people* won’t need a traditional bank ever again.

So...a digital wallet, like a passport, issued by the central bank. Safer. Pays interest. Gives modest credit. UPI already blindsided Mastercard/Visa in India. The same could happen to retail banks quietly displaced by a central bank wallet for the masses. I wouldn’t be surprised if China or India gets there first.

The upper classes will cling to their banks for wealth management, tax juggling, hedge fund gymnastics etc cuz their 3-inch chimp brains, by themselves, can't handle the complexities of modern ever changing high finance games. But for the rest of us? Banking apps may go the way of fax machines.
Don't let LLMs steal your identity
by aifoobar | 2025-05-26 02:19:09+00:00
If you are required to use AI asa software engineer insist on a git user ID be created to identify the LLM, commit t he code the LLM spits out verbatim and then push the branch to a PR.

Then fix the LLM code your own git user ID. If you dint do this you are letting LLMssteal your identity.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-05-26 02:20:30+00:00
> It's not clear what they meant

I know reading skills are in short supply in a group of people that only read code but I thought it was pretty obvious what I was alluding to. But even if it weren't (admittedly you have to have actually read Marx for it to jump out at you) by the time you responded there was another comment that very clearly spells it out, complete with citations.
by stonecharioteer | 2025-05-26 02:20:31+00:00
Trying to get out of burnout. I joined a company after being laid off, but the previous company has left me so burnt out that I feel... Slower. I finally fixed my neovim config, and I've set up `aerospace` on my work Mac so I can try to use a tiling window manager on this device. I've also set up my workspace tools after forever, and I'm starting to feel a little productive. Company hustle culture does not help.

I want to build a learning platform powered by deliberate practice and AI. To teach how to program from a practical perspective.

I am also trying to kick off a podcast for folks in tech at Bangalore. I hope to start it in June.
by reactordev | 2025-05-26 02:22:29+00:00
>It makes tech companies more like franchisee renting the location for their fast food joint and less like independent entities.

AWS, the strip mall of the internet. I’ve been saying this for a while. AWS is nice and all but don’t bet your innovation on a service they provide, rather provide a service on their infrastructure that solves your business needs and if AWS retires the service you were using, you can still continue operating.

Unfortunately this means all roads lead to kubernetes - sorry.
by mikeytown2 | 2025-05-26 02:23:14+00:00
Kids text only cell phone. LILYGO T-Deck Plus. I can track and communicate with them and not have to worry about giving them full internet.

Any sort of disaster they also are useful to get messages around. A couple days into a power outage and no cell towers work anymore, this happened 1 week before thanksgiving in the Seattle area 2024.
by K0balt | 2025-05-26 02:24:17+00:00
You can absolutely get the same standard of care for common things, but you might not get it for free. Where the standard of care does vary is where there are only a few specialists in the world for your condition.. they probably will be in the USA or Europe.

You have two elements in healthcare , for the most part: expertise, starting with basic medical education, then gained by reading and being exposed to patients, going to conferences and other experiential factors. People are ill, injured, or old everywhere, so this opportunity is well distributed.

Apart from that, you have technology, and people with money pay to have access to it, and people with money are also everywhere, so that too tends to be distributed.

There are also a lot more doctors per person in many developing nations, because education of doctors tends to be highly subsidized in those countries. You get a lot more of a doctors time and focused attention with your consult.

It’s when things are rare that it can be harder, but even then, sometimes the leading specialists start out off the beaten path.