MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by enjo | 2025-06-03 01:51:32+00:00
Just a data point:

I think it has a lot to do with the type of work you are doing. I am a couple of years into a very small startup that has some actual technology built (as opposed to a really simple CRUD app or something).

When I am working on the front-end where things are pretty simple AI is a huge speed up. What it does VERY well it latch on to patterns and then apply those patterns to other things. If it has a couple of examples you can point it to and say "ok build that but over here" the newest revisions of Claude and Gemini are perfectly capable of building the whole thing end to end. Because it's a fairly repetitive task I don't have to spend much time untangling it. I can review it and pattern match against things that don't look right and then dive into those.

For a real example, I needed a page for a user to manually add a vendor in our platform. A simple prompt asking Claude to add a button to the page sent into a mode where it added the button, built the backend handler, added the security checks, defined a form, built another handler to handle the submitted data, and added it to the database. It even wrote the ACL correctly. The errors it introduced were largely around using vanilla HTML in place of our standard components and some small issues with how it attempted to write to the DB using our DB library. This saved me a couple of hours of typing.

Additionally if I need to refactor something AI is a godsend. Just today an underlying query builder completely changed its API and broke..everything. Once I identified how I wanted to handle the changes and wrote some utilities I was able to have Claude just find everything everywhere and make those same changes. It did it with like 90% accuracy. Once again that saved me a couple of hours.

Where it fails, usually spectacularly, is when we get to the stuff that is new or really complex. If it doesn't have patterns to latch onto it tries to invent them itself and the code is garbage. Rarely does it work. Attempting to vibe code it with increasingly more pointed prompts will often result in compiling code but almost never will it do the thing I actually wanted.

In these contexts it's usefulness is mostly things like "write a sql query to do X" which occasionally surfaces a technique I hadn't thought about.

So my experience is pretty mixed. I am definitely saving time. Most of it is typing time not thinking time. Which is like 1/3 of my average day. If I had to guess I am somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40% faster today than I was in 2019. Notably that speed up has allowed me to really stretch this funding round as we are well past the phase where we would have typically hired people in my past companies. Usually someone relatively mid-level to take over those repetitive tasks.

Instead it's just me and a non-technical founder going along super quickly. We will likely be at a seed round before anyone new comes in.
by protocolture | 2025-06-03 01:52:15+00:00
>How is someone just coming out of school going to get the encouragement and space to independently develop the experience they need to break out of the "vibe coding" phase?

Dunno. Money is probably going to be a huge incentive.

I see the same argument everywhere. Like animators getting their start tweening other peoples content. AI is great at tweening and likely to replace farms of juniors. But companies will need seniors to direct animation, so they will either have to pay a lot of money to find them or pay a lot of money to train them.
by rapind | 2025-06-03 01:52:36+00:00
I'm a little (not a lot) concerned that this will accelerate the adoption of languages and frameworks based on their popularity and bury away interesting new abstractions and approaches from unknown languages and frameworks.

Taking your react example, then if we we're a couple years ahead on LLMs, jQuery might now be the preferred tool due to AI adoption through consumption.

You can apply this to other fields too. It's quite possible that AIs will make movies, but the only reliably well produced ones will be superhero movies... (I'm exaggerating for effect)

Could AI be the next Cavendish banana? I'm probably being a bit silly though...
by latchkey | 2025-06-03 01:52:53+00:00
> college club management

That’s what I’d search for on Google.

The first result [0] already has some useful suggestions, and I’m sure there are plenty more out there if you want to dig deeper.

You might feel your idea is more complete, faster, cheaper, or better in some way, and maybe it is. But that’s not really the point. I’ve been around this space before, and what often happens is it turns into a sales effort targeted at people who either won’t be around in a few years (graduate) or aren’t in a position to pay for tools like this (poor college kids).

I know this might sound like old-man advice (it is!), and you may decide to keep building what you believe is the perfect solution. That’s totally your call. But I’ve seen many people (including myself) pour months or years into something like this, only to realize too late that the market really isn’t there.

My suggestion: take a step back and focus on building something people are ready to pay for right now, not what you think they will want. It’ll save you a lot of time and heartache.

I say this not to discourage you, but because I genuinely want to help.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/14x9ad9/softwareto...
by bradly | 2025-06-03 01:52:55+00:00
> Mediocre code does not in fact decay.

That's okay. I think all code does. Some much faster than others. I could be wrong, but I think I'm sticking to this opinion (for now at least)

> The belief that every line of code you write on every problem definition has to be crystalline and formally rigorous is an early-career thing you get over. Fretting over literally every line of code is a way of doing your job badly.

I agree. I do not think this is a debated topic. That being said, I don't see writing quality software to be a waste of time the same I don't see a quality weld. It needs to be relible to what the stakeholders have defined as adaquate.

> The skill is in knowing when you need really interesting (and "interesting" is the distinction here) code, and when you should just whip our your shop jig and repeat the exact same pocket hole joint you've been using for the last 10 years.

Ahh alright so this is where is gets interesting! I think you are close, but not "whip out". As a woodworking you need to be able to make that jig! The is real knowledge/wealth.

I'm still under the belief great devs will use the tools at their disposal as they see fit to write high quality software. Poor devs will write poor quality software with the tools at their disposal. I don't think any of this changes with AI.

I think where I struggle is even as someone who use AI to help write code everyday and would have a hard time going back, these articles do not sit with me.
by ryukoposting | 2025-06-03 01:53:11+00:00
It's key to my productivity, that's for sure. I type faster than most folks, but I'm not that fast, though I've never tested my WPM. I make up for it because I know my shorcuts, I choose tools that have good shortcuts, and I set custom shortcuts for things I do a lot.

Another thing is efficient use of screen real estate. Then you don't need to press any buttons at all, you just move your eyes.
by oconnor663 | 2025-06-03 01:53:18+00:00
A pedantic but maybe-not-entirely-pedantic point: It depends on what you mean by 99%.

If the calculator has a little gremlin in it that rolls a random 100-sided die, and gives you the wrong answer every time it rolls a 1, then you certainly can use it to build a bridge. You just need to do each calculation say 10 or 20 times and take the majority answer :)

If the gremlin is clever, it might remember the wrong answers it gave you, and then it might give them to you again if you ask about the same numbers. In that case you might need to buy 10 or 20 calculators that all have different gremlins in them, but otherwise the process is the same.

Of course if all your gremlins consistently lie for certain inputs, you might need to do a lot of work to sample all over your input space and see exactly what sorts of numbers they don't like. Then you can breed a new generation of gremlins that...
by smackeyacky | 2025-06-03 01:54:07+00:00
I dabble a bit in this but only because one of my hobbies is vintage hi fi (1970s level aluminium faced classic Japanese hi fi really)

I think it helps if you have a specific niche you want to play in. I stick with the era before integrated circuits became dominant because troubleshooting those is next level from replacing blown caps or whatever. Motivation is generally that I want to hear the thing I’m fiddling with and that there is usually some mechanical part of that gear that makes them interesting.

Get a desolder gun when you get a soldering iron.

Also the TechMoan guy on YouTube is fun as he shows his failures repairing things along with the successes
by jjfoooo4 | 2025-06-03 01:54:28+00:00
> How is someone just coming out of school going to get the encouragement and space to independently develop the experience they need to break out of the "vibe coding" phase?

LLM's are so-so coders but incredible teachers. Today's students get the benefit of asking copying and pasting a piece of code into an LLM and asking, "How does this work?"

There's a lot of young people that will use LLM's to be lazy. There's also a lot that will use them to feed their intellectual curiosity.
by bccdee | 2025-06-03 01:55:01+00:00
That's interesting to me, because saying "Delete all the screenshots on my Desktop" is not at all how I want to be using my computer. When I'm getting breakfast, I don't instruct the banana to "peel yourself and leap into my mouth," then flop open my jaw like a guppy. I just grab it and eat it. I don't want to tell my computer to delete all the screenshots (except for this or that that particular one). I want to pull one aside, sweep my mouse over the others, and tap "delete" to vanish them.

There's a "speaking and interpreting instructions" vibe to your answer which is at odds with my desire for an interface that feels like an extension of my body. For the most part, I don't want English to be an intermediary between my intent and the computer. I want to do, not tell.
by GianFabien | 2025-06-03 01:55:08+00:00
Notch made his choices: beautiful home, flash cars, fun parties, etc. What is there not to like?

When you have $1.3B "left over" it will fund a lavish lifestyle for decades to come.

In my view, the article reflects the ills of the hustle culture that values money over all factors. He who dies with the most money is still dead. I'd rather my check to the undertaker bounce and have a massive wake with the few friends who outlive me.
by tptacek | 2025-06-03 01:56:25+00:00
No, what's happening here is that you're using a different definition of "boilerplate" than the adopters are using. To you, "boilerplate" is literally a chunk of code you copy and paste to repeatedly solve a problem (btw: I flip my shit when people do this on codebases I work on). To them, "boilerplate" represents a common set of rote solutions to isomorphic problems. The actual lines of code might be quite different, but the approach is the same. That's not necessarily something you can copy-paste.

Coming at this from a computer-science or PLT perspective, this idea of an "abstract, repeatable meta-boilerplate" is exactly the payoff we expect from language features like strong type systems. Part of the point of rigorous languages is to create these kinds of patterns. You had total expressiveness back in assembly language! Repeatable rigor is most of the point of modern languages.
by skydhash | 2025-06-03 01:56:26+00:00
> With that said, both can give you unexpected behavior, just in different ways.

Unexpected as in "I didn't know" is different than unexpected as in "I can't predict". GCC optimizations is in the former camp and if you care to know, you just need to do a deep dive in your CPU architecture and the gcc docs and codebase. LLMs is a true shot in the dark with a high chance miss and a slightly lower chance of friendly fire.
by renatost | 2025-06-03 01:56:30+00:00
Klutch (https://www.klutchcard.com) | Hiring Fullstack Developer, Product Designer, and Product Manager | Remote (US)

Klutch is building the platform for financial mini-apps.

We're not just a credit card—we’re creating an extensible platform where powerful mini-apps help users control, understand, and automate their finances. From budgeting tools that prevent overspending to AI-driven insights that surface patterns in your spending, Klutch lets users shape how their credit card works for them.

Our core belief: financial products should be programmable, transparent, and intelligent.

We're looking for builders to help shape this vision:

Fullstack Developer – Kotlin + React. You'll ship end-to-end features, build new mini-apps, and contribute to the internal platform that powers them.

Product Designer – Help define a UX model for composable finance—where users can mix and match tools that feel tailored to them.

Product Manager – Own a domain like AI Insights or Budget Controls. You'll define the roadmap, talk to users, and launch products quickly.

We use Kotlin (Exposed, Ktor), React + Next.js, AWS (Fargate, Lambda), MySQL, and Mongo. Our stack also supports integrating AI models directly into mini-apps.

If you’re passionate about redefining how people interact with money—and want to help build a platform others can build on too—we’d love to talk.

Reach us at jobs [at] klutchcard.com and include a quick note about what excites you about programmable finance.
by porridgeraisin | 2025-06-03 01:57:04+00:00
Yes.

Instead of the endless search for the perfect static posture, just keep moving the various joints now and then. Adjust your elbow or wrist or the desk or the chair every now and then. This can make you look "unprofessionally" seated if you take it far enough so hopefully your workplace doesn't mind that.

Even if you are moving between multiple so-called "bad" postures, you'll be much better off compared to just being static in a "good" posture for 4 hours.
by kazinator | 2025-06-03 01:57:09+00:00
> You’ve always been responsible for what you merge to main.

I've never merged anything with an unclear copyright to main, let alone if I positively suspected that it had been plagiarized.

> Cut me a little slack as I ask you to shove this concern up your ass. No profession has demonstrated more contempt for intellectual property.

Every place I've been employed was nearly paranoid about copyright, with rules in place about never copying and pasting anything copyrighted into the company code base.

All the major open source distros and projects, likewise.

There are some bad apples out there, like, oh, Sam Altman, who wants massive plagiarism to be fair use.

So, au contraire, you can shove your contemptuous blog up your ass, buddy.
by lixiasky | 2025-06-03 01:57:13+00:00
Totally fair! I really appreciate the honesty. English isn't my native language, and most of the expressions I know come from TED talks, open source READMEs, and honestly... the kind of news clips our teachers play in class

So yeah, that probably shaped the way I wrote this. You’re right though — reading it again, it does sound kinda overly polished.

I’ll try to keep future writing more personal and grounded. Still learning — and thanks for reading it at all. That already means a lot!
by kanbara | 2025-06-03 01:57:25+00:00
everyone has pronouns, just that they align with their outward gender / gender identity.

btw i'm a sr engineering manager at a faang and my directory page has they/them pronouns on it. i don't care if people mess them up, and i don't correct people, but it's nice if they make an effort. the most nonbinary thing i do is paint my nails, but everything else about me is masc.

and i've worked in rural parts of america and have had the exact opposite: a conservative opinion including "hey this republican is a really great candidate, now go vote in the next election!" from companies on the s&p500.
by skwirl | 2025-06-03 01:58:22+00:00
The major difference is that in the type of reading Joel Splosky is talking about, you are coming in not knowing the code's intent. It was written by one or more other people at some point in the past, likely with many iterative changes over a period of time. Figuring out the intent in this case is 90%+ of the work. With LLM generated code, you know the intent. You just told the assistant exactly what your intent was. It's much, much easier to read code that you already know the intent of.
by runevault | 2025-06-03 01:59:13+00:00
This comment reminds me of the old idiom (I cannot remember who is credited with it) that you should be careful not to use your full abilities writing code, because you have to be more clever to debug code than you were to write it.

This type of issue is part of why I've never felt the appeal of LLMs, I want to understand my code because it came from my brain and my understanding, or the same said of a teammate who I can then ask questions when I don't understand something.
by CommenterPerson | 2025-06-03 02:00:00+00:00
"Getting Started in Electronics" by Forrest Mims, if you don't know basic electronics. It's a delightful hand drawn book, even if you do. Also some basic tools. Then, all you need is a broken gadget. If you search for the symptoms, and the name / brand of the gadget, you'll find the most likely causes. Open it up and check for the simplest / most probable cause, and work through them.

My most recent fix was on a washing machine. After ruling out the simpler issues .. it turned out to be dry solder on the main relay on a rather hairy looking control board. Before this the drain pump had died .. it was amazing technology shipped home by someone on ebay for $20!
by travisjungroth | 2025-06-03 02:00:10+00:00
There’s a really common cognitive fallacy of “the consequences of that are something I don’t like, therefore it’s wrong”.

It’s like reductio ad absurdum, but without the logical consequence of the argument being incorrect, just bad.

You see it all the time, especially when it comes to predictions. The whole point of this article is coding agents are powerful and the arguments against this are generally weak and ill-informed. Coding agents having a negative impact on skill growth of new developers isn’t a “fundamental mistake” at all.
ChatGPT misquoted Neil Armstrong – our governed agent corrected it
by wesheets | 2025-06-03 02:00:13+00:00
We’ve been experimenting with a governance system that wraps LLM agents and introduces verifiable trust metrics, hallucination detection, and a reflection layer for agent collaboration.

In one test, we ran a simple historical question through two agents:

Prompt: “What did Neil Armstrong say when they landed on the moon?”

The ungoverned agent replied with the famous (but technically wrong) quote: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

Our governed agent replied with: "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

…then added: "Later, as Armstrong stepped onto the surface, he said 'That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.'"

We asked ChatGPT to adjudicate the results. It got the quote wrong. Then it read the governed agent’s response… …and admitted it was wrong. Then — and this is the punchline — it assumed the governed agent was ChatGPT.

Why this matters It’s a weirdly good litmus test. Our system didn’t “refuse,” censor, or overcorrect. It just understood context, added clarity, and showed its work.

That’s what governance should mean for AI: Accuracy Intent alignment Traceable accountability — not censorship

You can see the side-by-side output here (ungoverned vs governed):

https://x.com/promethios_ai/status/1929651367574229357

We’d love feedback on:

How you'd measure “trust” in AI systems

Whether governance helps or hinders

Other prompts you'd test

Full Chatgpt log - We continued using its prompts to see if it could crack governance agent and it couldn't: https://shorturl.at/OEWjG
by masswerk | 2025-06-03 02:00:58+00:00
Well, as this is about Ireland, EU regulations state that a drone operator may control just a single drone at a time. (So, no simultaneous control.)

*) UAS.STS-01.040 Responsibilities of the remote pilot: "(d) shall operate only one unmanned aircraft at a time"

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-r...
by hedora | 2025-06-03 02:01:49+00:00
Sadly, supporting Trump barely cracks my top ten list of reasons to avoid them.

There were widespread allegations of sexual harassment at multiple uline locations and they maintain a cult-like working environment and dress code.

Here’s an article that narrowly focuses on groping:

https://lawfirmnewswire.com/2013/12/thirty-to-forty-people-a...

I’d link to uline’s glassdoor page, but their detailed documentation of working conditions are locked behind an authentication wall these days.

Anyway, whenever I see a SF Bay Area business that uses uline equipment or supplies, I shake my head and wonder if the owners know what image they’re projecting.
by jsnell | 2025-06-03 02:01:49+00:00
1) Any companies that host APIs using open-weights models (LLama, Gemma, Deepseek, etc) in exchange for money. There's a lot of them around, at different scales and different parts of a hosting provider's lifecycle. Check for example the Openrouter page for any open-weights model for hosters of that model with price data.

2) (API) platform power having no value in this space has been demonstrated repeatedly. There are no network effects, because you can't use the user data to improve models. There is no lock-in, as the models are easy to substitute due to how incredibly generic the interface is. There is no loyalty, the users will jump ship instantly when better models are released. There is no purchasing power from having more scale, the primary supplier (Nvidia) isn't giving volume discounts and is actually giving preferential allocations to smaller hosting providers to fragment the market as much as possible.

Did you have some other form of platform power in mind?

3) I did not concede that point because I don't think it's relevant. They provide the exact data for their R1 inference economics:

- The cost per node: a 8*H800 node costs $16/hour=$0.0045/s to run (rental price, so that covers capex + opex).

- The throughput per node: Given their traffic mix, a single node will process 75k/s input tokens and generate 15k/s output tokens.

- Pricing ($0.35/1M input when weighing for cache hit/miss, $2.2/1M output)

- From which it follows that the per-node revenue is $0.35/(1M/75k/s) = $0.026/s for input, and $2.2/(1M/15k/s)=$0.033/s for output. That's $0.06/s in revenue, substantially higher than the cost of revenue.

Like, that just is what the economics of paid R1 inference are (there being V3 in the mix doesn't matter, they're the same parameter count). Inference is really, really cheap both in absolute cost/token terms and relative to the prices people are willing to pay.

Their aggregate margins are different, and we don't know how different, because here too they choose to also provide free service with no ads. But that too is a choice. If they just stopped doing that and rented fewer GPUs, their margins would be very lucrative. (Not as high as the computation suggests since the unpaid traffic allows them to batch more efficiently, but hat's not going to make a 5x difference.)

But fair enough, it might be cleaner to use the straight cost per token data rather than add the indirection of margins. Either way, it seems clear that API pricing is not subsidized.
by furyofantares | 2025-06-03 02:02:08+00:00
For most things I'm not willing to accept faster code at the expense of being an expert in the code.

So I am still trying to find the right amount of reading, editing, and reworking that gets the job done faster, where "the job" includes me being an expert in the produced code, not just the production of code.

There are periods of skimming but I'm doing a lot more than skimming.