MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by heisenburgzero | 2025-06-05 01:59:37+00:00
In my own experience, if the problem is not solvable by a LLM. No amount of prompt "engineering" will really help. Only way to solve it would be by partially solving it (breaking down to sub-tasks / examples) and let it run its miles.

I'll love to be wrong though. Please share if anyone has a different experience.
by userbinator | 2025-06-05 02:00:13+00:00
There's also analog EFI, which was rare and expensive and otherwise not great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendix_Electrojector

The early electronic components were not reliable in an underhood environment and were not easily modified as engine control requirements advanced. Most of the 35 vehicles originally equipped with Electrojector were retrofitted with 4-barrel carburetors.
by wpietri | 2025-06-05 02:00:29+00:00
I think it depends a lot on what you think "wrong position" means. I think skepticism only really goes wrong when it refuses to see the truth in what it's questioning long past the point where it's reasonable. I don't think we're there yet. For example, questions like "What is the long term effect on a code base" take us seeing the long term. Or there are legitimate questions about the ROI of learning and re-learn rapidly changing tools. What's worth it to you may not be in other situations.

I also think hype cycles and actual progress can have a variety of relationships. After Bubble 1.0 burst, there were years of exciting progress without a lot of hype. Maybe we'll get something similar here, as reasonable observers are already seeing the hype cycle falter. E.g.: https://www.economist.com/business/2025/05/21/welcome-to-the...

And of course, it all hinges on you being right. Which I get you are convinced of, but if you want to be thorough, you have to look at the other side of it.
by roughly | 2025-06-05 02:00:37+00:00
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGRLGkm0QE

I’m reminded of when the US military figured out it should just replace all its proprietary field drone controllers with Xbox controllers because every single grunt that enlisted already had 10,000 hours on the things. If the future of warfare is drones, Christ, that video is terrifying.
by yowlingcat | 2025-06-05 02:02:33+00:00
I would caution against thinking it's impossible even if it's not something you've personally experienced. Prompt engineering is necessary (but not sufficient) to creating high leverage outcomes from LLMs when solving complex problems.

Without it, the chances of getting to a solution are slim. With it, the chances of getting to 90% of a solution and needing to fine tune the last mile are a lot higher but still not guaranteed. Maybe the phrase "prompt engineering" is bad and it really should be called "prompt crafting" because there is more an element of craft, taste, and judgment than there is durable, repeatable principles which are universally applicable.
by wpietri | 2025-06-05 02:03:16+00:00
The stake they and I were referring to is a financial interest in the success of AI. Related is the reputational impact, of course. A lot of people who may not make money do like being seen as smart and cutting edge.

But even if we look at your notion of stake, you're missing huge chunks of it. Code bases are extremely expensive assets, and programmers are extremely expensive resources. $10 a month is nothing compared to the costs of a major cleanup or rewrite.
by _steady | 2025-06-05 02:03:47+00:00
this is a glib version of exactly what i agree with. a human doesn't do the maximal efficiency with the inputs its given, but has a high number of varied inputs that allow the multi part of multi-modal to really shine. We're not a true general intelligence because we can't respond to problems in space or time that are too big or too small for us, outside of the right frame of reference or outside the right frequency of visible light for us to respond to. Also, the amount of processing power we can respond with is capped as well. So when we say AGI, we mean a computer that responds to the same set of stimuli as we do, with a repsonse somewhere in the region we can respond back to. I don't see why a robot with AGI would care about sunburn if their robot arms don't care about heat, and i don't see that as any less general as if us and a matis shrimp are talking about different frequencies of photons we can see
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-05 02:04:11+00:00
People can't be overly surprised by this as an initial response from the Swimming world body and is the right thing to do.

Regardless of whether you support the Enhanced Games or not, athletes that are part of the swimming world body, associated competitions and the Olympics are flat out not allowed to be doping. Any doping may give you a competitive advantage even in the off season that could benefit you during the season.

I could understand other sporting bodies doing something similar to prevent a grey area of athletes competing that have openly used PEDs. Sporting bodies around the world have spent a significant amount of time making sure athletes are performing equally without PEDs.
by alephnerd | 2025-06-05 02:04:20+00:00
I agree with you!

But Andressen's contention ain't about OpenAI or SpaceX - it's about money pits like Kong, Envoy, or Illumio that should have IPOed or SPACed in 2019-21 but have founders who chose to remain private because they would have been screwed over by the public market.

From an A16Z leadership perspective, they have a significant roster of 2011-19 vintage startups that they would have preferred to list so they could redeploy capital (and make their carry), but didn't because listing sucks if you're a founder (as Pat pointly elucidated on multiple occasions during 20-22 while raising his growth round). And their valuations are too high so later stage investors push back in board meetings.

As yk, it's business - we're all looking for our own net benefits, but some are more let's say "personalist" about their positions.

And to reiterate, I agree with your stance and point - I'm just trying to voice the other (imo unjustified and greedy) PoV that explains some of the statements and actions coming out of these guys. It's not like I have many places to kvetch without career ending implications - I can only annoying Dan P enough times
by wavemode | 2025-06-05 02:04:30+00:00
> There's been a clear divide between what DNC wants to run and what the actual democrats want out of the party

There's a pretty easy way to reconcile this - run a fair primary election. Rigging it against Sanders in 2016, and not running one at all in 2024, both expectedly led to disaster. You're never gonna win if you don't even have the full support of your own party.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-05 02:04:38+00:00
I once encountered malware on my roommate’s Windows 98 system. It was a worm designed to rewrite every image file as a VBS script that would replicate and re-infect every possible file whenever it was clicked or executed. It hid the VBS extensions and masqueraded as the original images.

Creation of a shortcut on Windows is not necessarily innocuous. It was a common first vector to drop malware as users were accustomed to installing software that did the same thing. A Windows shortcut can hide an arbitrary pathname, arbitrary command-line arguments, a custom icon, and more; these can be modified at any time.

So whether it was a mistake for UAC to be overzealous or obstructionist, or Microsoft was already being mocked for poor security, perhaps they weren’t wrong to raise awareness about such maneuvers.
Ask HN: What's the most overengineered tool everyone uses but won't admit sucks?
by fazlerocks | 2025-06-05 02:05:19+00:00
Looking to build something open source and trying to figure out what tools everyone pretends to love but actually hate.

I'll start. Jira. We all use it, we all hate it, nobody admits how much time we waste updating tickets.

Did you move it to the right column? Story points aren't filled out. Link it to the epic.

Meanwhile the actual work takes 2 hours, documenting it takes another hour.

Half the team ignores it, the other half are obsessed with workflows that have 47 different statuses. But try suggesting GitHub issues and suddenly "how will we track velocity??"

What tool is supposed to make you productive but just creates busywork?
by ineedasername | 2025-06-05 02:05:24+00:00
>it will not lead to human-level AGI that can, e.g., perform sensorimotor reasoning, motion planning, and social coordination.

That seems much less convincing in the face of current LLM approaches overturning a similar claim plenty of people wod have held about this technology, as of a few years ago, to do what it does now. Replace the specifics here with "will not lead to human level NLP that can, e.g., perform the functions of WSD, stemming, pragmatics, NER, etc."

And then people who had been working on these problems and capabilites just about woke up one morning and realized many of their career-long plans for addressing just some of these research tasks had to find something else to do for the next few decades of their lives.

I am not affirming the inverse of this author's claims, merely pointing out that it's early days in evaluating the full limits.
by wpietri | 2025-06-05 02:08:04+00:00
> Generally speaking, I find it suspect when someone points to failed predictions of disruptive changes without acknowledging successful predictions.

I specifically said: "But anybody with enough experience in tech can count a lot more instances of 'the world is about to change' than 'the world really changed'. I pretty clearly understand that sometimes the world does change.

Funnily, I find it suspect when people accuse me of failing to do things I did in the very post they're responding to. So I think this is a fine time for us both to find better ways to spend our time.
by bumby | 2025-06-05 02:08:18+00:00
This is the same attitude that people used to try and avoid any culpability for Boeing in the 737-Max crashes. Even if they was a technical way to avoid a crash, it doesn’t avoid negligent or blatantly bad engineering practices. There’s a reason why engineers are expected to have an ethical duty to the public. Automakers get an industrial exemption on the assumption that the internal processes are sufficient to address the risk…What are we supposed to do when they aren’t?
by armsaw | 2025-06-05 02:09:24+00:00
When I look at this data, I see the type of self driving in use, as well as the written narrative of every crash, along with several other fields as REDACTED FOR BUSINESS REASONS, only for Tesla vehicles, where every other manufacturer seems to have these fields populated. To me, that information would be crucial to understanding what actually happened in each case, as opposed to only being able to understand some of the ambient conditions around each accident.
by TheCowboy | 2025-06-05 02:10:05+00:00
I think part of the skill in using LLMs is getting a sense for how to effectively break problems down, and also getting a sense of when and when not to do it. The article also mentions this.

I think we'll also see ways of restructuring, organizing, and commenting code to improve interaction with LLMs. And also expect LLMs to get better at doing this, and maybe suggesting ways for programmers to break problems down that it is struggling with.
by FireBeyond | 2025-06-05 02:10:14+00:00
> less than honest people will pretend it says

Like Tesla?

If your airbags don't deploy, Tesla doesn't consider it an accident for the purposes of reporting (modern safety systems don't blindly deploy airbags, they evaluate g-forces, speeds, angles of impact, etc., so you can hit something at 25mph and the vehicle decides your seatbelts are sufficient. Tesla decides "that's not a reportable collision"). Know when else your airbags might not deploy? Very serious accidents, when hardware or controllers are damaged.

Speaking of which, fatalities are not included in that report. "It was a collision where someone died, but doesn't merit inclusion in a safety report" is a weird position to take.
by ra7 | 2025-06-05 02:10:20+00:00
No serious analysis can be done when we can’t even tell if a crash occurred under FSD Supervised or Autopilot because they’re two very different things with different capabilities. Same with withholding software/hardware versions and narrative of events.

Tesla also has a problem of their telematics underreporting crashes. One of the reasons for that is they don’t consider it a crash if airbags don’t deploy. This was called out by the NHTSA in a prior investigation: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf.

Here’s the relevant paragraph from that report:

> Gaps in Tesla's telematic data create uncertainty regarding the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot engaged are involved in crashes. Tesla is not aware of every crash involving Autopilot even for severe crashes because of gaps in telematic reporting. Tesla receives telematic data from its vehicles, when appropriate cellular connectivity exists and the antenna is not damaged during a crash, that support both crash notification and aggregation of fleet vehicle mileage. Tesla largely receives data for crashes only with pyrotechnic deployment, which are a minority of police reported crashes.
by matt_s | 2025-06-05 02:10:28+00:00
JIRA gets a lot of deserved hate but I think nearly all software work tracking systems suffer from the same issue: marketing over promises about velocity and predictions about project delivery timelines.

Have we as an industry gotten any better at delivering projects on time? If you have a lot of dysfunction in your organization no software is going to fix that. Or to put it another way, you can’t solve people problems with software.
by fazlerocks | 2025-06-05 02:11:15+00:00
Running Llama 3.1 70B on 2x4090s with vLLM. Memory is a pain but works decent for most stuff.

Tbh for coding I just use the smaller ones like CodeQwen 7B. way faster and good enough for autocomplete. Only fire up the big model when I actually need it to think.

The annoying part is keeping everything updated, new model drops every week and half don't work with whatever you're already running.
Show HN: Website Speed Checker in Bulk (using apify)
by onescales | 2025-06-05 02:12:01+00:00
I just released an Apify actor on the app store that runs Google Lighthouse performance audits on 1 to 10,000 URLs in a single batch. It measures Core Web Vitals (LCP, FCP, CLS, TBT, Speed Index) for both desktop and mobile. Most existing tools either limit you to single URLs or charge premium prices for bulk audits. This runs real Chrome instances with Lighthouse and outputs clean CSV/JSON data.

Takes about 1 minute per URL since it's running full Lighthouse audits.

Would love feedback from anyone who tries it out!
by otterley | 2025-06-05 02:12:06+00:00
> Take the camera-based driver attention monitoring that works in my seven year-old Tesla, which notices IMMEDIATELY if I look away from the windshield for more than a second or two, and then require that in the human-driven cars.

This exists already in Subaru vehicles, even ones with ICEs. It's called "DriverFocus." It's super helpful. However, I don't believe the technology is mandated in all vehicles yet.

The driver drowsiness alert in Teslas seems to be much more limited than that. It only activates at speeds over 60km/h, when driven for more than 10 minutes, and when Autopilot is not engaged. I wonder why they disable it when Autopilot is on?
by demosthanos | 2025-06-05 02:12:25+00:00
You can do this conversationally, but I've had the most success with API requests, since that gives you the most flexibility.

Pseudo-prompt:

Prompt 1: Do the thing, describe it in detail, end with a clear summary of your answer that includes ${THINGS_YOU_NEED_FOR_JSON}.

Prompt 2: A previous agent said ${CONTENT}, structure as JSON according to ${SCHEMA}.

Ideally you use a model in Prompt 2 that supports JSON schemas so you have 100% guarantee that what you get back parses. Otherwise you can implement it yourself by validating it locally and sending the errors back with a prompt to fix them.
by emmelaich | 2025-06-05 02:12:45+00:00
Pity they don't show the even older graphics on TRS-80.

Delight in the 128x48 monochrome display, max 6 fps.

http://www.trs-80.org/t80-fs1/

The basic layout (airfields, mountains) you see in the article was kept for a few iterations even after MS bought them.
by naikrovek | 2025-06-05 02:13:09+00:00
I’m ok with needing non-browser software for those things.

> Browsers provide a great cross-platform sandbox and make it much easier to develop secure software across all platforms.

Sure, until advertising companies find ways around and through those sandboxes because browser authors want the browsers be capable of more, in the name of a cross platform solution. The more a browser can do, the more surface area the sandbox has. (An advertising company makes the most popular browser, by the way.)

> What other platform (outside of web browsers) is a good alternative for securely developing cross-platform software that interacts with hardware?

There isn’t one, other than maybe video game engines, but it doesn’t matter. OS vendors need to work to make cross-platform software possible; it’s their fault we need a cross-platform solution at all. Every OS is a construct, and they were constructed to be different for arbitrary reasons.

A good app-permission model in the browser is much more likely to happen, but I don’t see that really happening, either. “Too inconvenient for users [and our own in-house advertisers/malware authors]” will be the reason.

MacOS handles permissions pretty well, but it could do better. If something wants local network permission, the user gets prompted. If the user says no, those network requests fail. Same with filesystem access. Linux will never have anything like this, nor will Windows, but it’s what security looks like, probably.

Users will say yes to those prompts ultimately, because as soon as users have the ability to say “no” on all platforms, sites will simply gate site functionality behind the granting of those permissions because the authors of those sites want that data so badly.

The only thing that is really going to stop behavior like this is law, and that is NEVER going to happen in the US.

So, short of laws, browsers themselves must stop doing stupid crap like allowing local network access from sites that aren’t on the local network, and nonsense stuff like WebUSB. We need to give up on the idea that anyone can be safe on a platform when we want that platform to be able to do anything. Browsers must have boundaries.

Operating systems should be the police, probably, and not browsers. Web stuff is already slow as hell, and browsers should be less capable, not more capable for both security reasons and speed reasons.
by WalterBright | 2025-06-05 02:13:20+00:00
That's all I know about it. I was told the tale by my lead engineer at Boeing, Erwin Schweitzer. One of the great things about working with such engineers is all the amazing stories. You won't find much information on this incident or the "mach tuck" one because they didn't crash.

But you might try googling "727 autopilot landing gear dive".
by andsoitis | 2025-06-05 02:13:35+00:00
"For as long as I1 can remember, I have been in love with pro- gramming. As a pre-teen, I excitedly taught myself program- ming with BASIC books from the local library, and as a late teenager, I joined my high school’s computer club, and my high school capstone project was a rudimentary machine learning algorithm. In university, I chose compiler courses as electives, and my final MSc project included the develop- ment of a small programming language for SAT solving. It seemed a logical next step, when given the opportunity, to pursue a PhD in the direction of programming languages (PL). I am, for all intents and purposes, a very normal pro- gramming languages person, with one notable exception: I am female."

but then:

"Feminism Can Help Question Values and Priorities of Programming Languages. As I was trying to under- stand my mismatch with the PL community, I started to see that the current state of the art in PL research and de- sign prioritizes machines over people, there is a focus on programming languages that are easy to read for the ma- chine, rather than easy for people. The current standards of evaluation in the PL community are set from a masculine perspective as well, valuing formalism and formal methods over user studies, quantitative over qualitative work, and the examining of technical aspects over context and people"

So they loved something as a kid growing up but now think it was dehumanizing ("prioritizing machines over people")?

"Feminism in PL introduces interesting and exciting challenges that will require the deliberate work of examining different perspectives; seeking out users from a variety of different backgrounds and identities, and carefully investigating our programming languages and systems from diverse perspec- tives."

I don't know that you can rely on feminism to drive inclusion of diverse perspectives at large. There are many backgrounds and identities that I do not expect feminism to bring to the fore for consideration and inclusion in PL design. I might be wrong on this, so would love a concrete example that draws that throughline.
by toast0 | 2025-06-05 02:13:40+00:00
I've got a fancy new car with that.

It yells at me sometimes when I'm driving down my drive way and looking at my goats instead of the driveway, which is fair. It also yells at me when I look at the mirrors for 'too long' or if I look for 'too long' for potential cross traffic when crossing an intersection (when driving late at night, I try to look for potential red light runners, but you have to spend more time looking). It also tells my spouse to sit up when she already is. Chances are this alert is going to be disabled, because it's a bigger distraction than anything else.

It also likes to alert about cross traffic when I start moving to sequence after traffic I saw that is in motion. Those alerts would be handy if it were about traffic I didn't see though, so I don't want to turn them off, even though so far they've been unhelpful.
by ronbenton | 2025-06-05 02:13:52+00:00
Favorite quote(s)

>But as I told the team as the end closed in, “We took a pipedream, and made it a policy choice.” No one can claim with a straight face that Direct File is impossible anymore; bringing it back requires only that our elected leaders make a different choice.

>What I mourn the most, though, is the dissolution of the team, the disregard for the vast impact they were poised and eager to deliver. The team itself is what I am proudest of from my time working on Direct File. Their manic dedication to the mission. The care they consistently took to get it right. The trust and love they had for each other.
by echelon | 2025-06-05 02:14:00+00:00
Rust ORMs still don't feel great. They're verbose, the tooling is flaky, and they feel fly-by-night. They're surprisingly not very type safe either. I'd rather use Rust's sqlx until the Rust ORM situation improves.

Axum and Actix are already drop in replacements for something like Flask. They're mature and good at what they do.

The dream of a Rails or Django in Rust is still really far off. I'm glad the Loco folks are trying, but it needs a lot more magic and maturity to truly bear that comparison.
by modeless | 2025-06-05 02:14:55+00:00
The 3 and Y were not just Tesla's most successful products, the Y was literally the most successful product in the entire vehicle industry. They never had a dashboard display and they always had a touchscreen as the primary interface. Bonkers to suggest that as a reason for a decline this year. The stalks, sure, but Y never had the blinker stalk removed so it's still not a reason.
by caeruleus | 2025-06-05 02:15:00+00:00
I recognize that my initial statement comes off as too broad in light of theoretical computability, when I was mostly weighing in terms of current/near-term technology. Given what we know today, I would (still cautiously) agree with your statement. There hasn't been any evidence to the contrary (only some highly contested speculation, most prominently by Roger Penrose).