MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tptacek | 2025-06-17 04:38:12+00:00
Yes. More things should be rote recitations. Rote code is easy to follow and maintain. We get in trouble trying to be clever (or DRY) --- especially when we do it too early.

Important tangential note: the eBPF verifier doesn't "cut out the chaff". It rejects good, valid programs. It does not care that the programs are valid or good; it cares that it is not smart enough to understand them; that's all that matters. That's the point I'm making about reviewing LLM code: you are not on the hook for making it work. If it looks even faintly off, you can't hurt the LLM's feelings by killing it.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-06-17 04:39:03+00:00
>none of the work produced by the scientific establishment is trustworthy.

There's that word again. No works are trustworthy. You shouldn't trust, instead verify. Be skeptical. I'm more concerned with which of their works can be verified.

>An ironic stance considering that it's the inverse of the blind worship

I'm not sure there's any difference worth mentioning between blind worship and cuddly warm trusting that you want to do. One may seem a little less zealous, but it's the same pig just with extra lipstick.
by josephg | 2025-06-17 04:40:50+00:00
If we’re gonna talk trip philosophy, then:

This is only true at the physical level. At another level, the only thing that “exists” is a mind. If all you have is a bunch of rocks floating through space with nothing to perceive it, the universe is indistinguishable from emptiness. Experience lives at the intersection of instantiated reality and thought / perception. You need both.

You can also imagine travelling along the axis of an idea or an archetype through time and space. For example, the idea of lovers or warriors or something. Each instantiation of that idea in someone exists along that axis. The idea can only come into being inside a physical reality or simulation. But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe.

Ideas aren’t made out of atoms.
by didibus | 2025-06-17 04:43:58+00:00
If I follow what you are saying, employers won't see any benefits, but employees, while they will take the same time and create the same output in the same amount of time, will be able to do so at a reduced mental strain?

Personally, I don't know if this is always a win, mostly because I enjoy the creative and problem solving aspect of coding, and reducing that to something that is more about prompting, correcting, and mentoring an AI agent doesn't bring me the same satisfaction and joy.
by reactordev | 2025-06-17 04:44:16+00:00
It’s all about protecting your brain from possible stroke or other brain injury from it. Your balance isn’t the best - add dripping walls and it’s ripe for life alert.

Some drugs increase heart rate dramatically - the older you are the more susceptible to atherosclerosis or other circulatory diseases. There’s more medical risk the older you are for sure. However, you may find you only need a little bit. Some drugs are funny. Some work on first try, other takes a couple tries before your brain understands the chemical.
by JimDabell | 2025-06-17 04:45:01+00:00
> It's something you can pick in a few minutes (or an hour if you're using more advanced tooling, mostly spending it setting things up).

This doesn’t give you any time to experiment with alternative approaches. It’s equivalent to saying that the first approach you try as a beginner will be as good as it possibly gets, that there’s nothing at all to learn.
by asveikau | 2025-06-17 04:45:32+00:00
I think some people are shown to be more arrogant and egotistical after psychedelics.

I know some folks in the HN audience will not like this example, but Elon Musk is one.

An older cannonical example is Timothy Leary.

No names are coming to mind, but I feel like there have been plenty of psychedelic informed cults, with cult leader narcissists who continue to abuse people despite experiencing psychedelics.

It may open some doors and cause you to consider more angles, and for many people it helps them with empathy and connectedness, but in another sense it's amplifying what you've already got. A "bad" input can get amplified too.
by tomhow | 2025-06-17 04:45:58+00:00
This is a generic tangent, and it's against the guidelines to do this. Additionally, the statement "I stopped reading" is just the kind of thing we want to avoid on HN, as it's empty signalling, rather than substantive commentary about the topic. Please avoid commenting like this on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by throwaway60397 | 2025-06-17 04:47:26+00:00
> I don't understand why anyone would bother forking Firefox when forking Chromium is available which is more advanced and more modular.

No uBlock is a deal breaker. Chromium is stuck with the neutered uBlock Lite thanks to Manifest V3.

> Brave browser fulfills that role

Sure, and it's also funded by VC money. How long until the vultures start swooping in to get a return on their investiment?
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-06-17 04:48:45+00:00
>Skepticism is not anti-scientific.

One might think that to be the case, but science is in a hurry to save our planet, and it has no patience for your skepticism. It may already be too late.

>Distrusting the scientific method is.

Maybe I don't trust it either. Maybe because I'm distrustful, the scientific method should prove, over and over again, that it's worth a damn. And maybe when it's finally proven that, maybe I go on distrusting it... and make it prove it some more. If one truly though the scientific method worthy of any respect, such a person might say "that's ok, because it will go on re-proving what has already been proven". But so little do I ever hear of that sentiment. Like in this very thread.

>Scientists did not ask for this.

Probably not. I'd be skeptical of the theory that they asked for it. But it doesn't seem altogether implausible that they might have enjoyed it once it happened even though they didn't ask. And liking it, they started behaving in ways that encouraged it just the same. And those scientists who enjoyed it the most elbowed their way to the front to egg it on even more. And so that's where we are now. I mean, I'm a little skeptical that it happened that way, and I'd welcome evidence that disproves it.

>Most people who make this point are not being honest.

It's really sort of hilarious how it's only my side that can ever be honest. Not the other guys'. And this is true no matter who "me" is. None of your opponents, for instance, can ever be genuine... they're always trying to cheat. And if your side tries to cheat, well, it's with the best of intentions because the stakes are so high. Not that you would cheat, only the other side ever does that.

>f you are, you should make specific arguments rather than rehash propaganda.

If we can't start here, then there can be no real conversation. Basically you're just asking me to surrender and admit that I'm the bad guy trying to cheat and swindle, everything I say is a lie, and you're the innocent victims. Haha.
by smaudet | 2025-06-17 04:48:57+00:00
> We get in trouble trying to be clever (or DRY)

Certainly, however:

> That's the point I'm making about reviewing LLM code: you are not on the hook for making it work

The second portion of your statement is either confusing (something unsaid) or untrue (you are still ultimately on the hook).

Agentic AI is just yet another, as you put it way to "get in trouble trying to be clever".

My previous point stands - if it was that cut and dry, then a (free) script/library could generate the same code. If your only real use of AI is to replace template systems, congratulations on perpetuating the most over-engineered template system ever. I'll stick with a provable, free template system, or just not write the code at all.
by buildsjets | 2025-06-17 04:49:38+00:00
As the article notes, besides his own extensive career as an author of aviation literature and analysis, he is he son of Wolfgang Langewiesche, whose book “Stick and Rudder” probably provides the most layperson accessible explanation of aircraft stability and control.

https://www.docdroid.net/IevViY7/stick-and-rudder-an-explana...
by kerkeslager | 2025-06-17 04:51:59+00:00
> Rationalist: someone who only values positivistic reasoning. Someone like this does not have a useful guide to truth and typically deigns to fill the role themselves.

So... you basically define "rationalist" as someone who is wrong. Sounds like a pointless word to me. And let me guess, you're going to call me a rationalist later, rather than actually respond to anything I said? Let's continue and find out!

> Intuitionist: someone who is comfortable dealing in vague, messy, imprecision. The kind of stuff the real world is based on.

So... someone who doesn't use phrases like "no engineer" because they're obviously wrong in a messy, imprecise world?

It doesn't sound much like you're the intuitionist here, but I am sure you think you are!

> I do not care whether you care or not or whether you think it's wrong or not. This is that 'not having a useful guide to truth so you deign to fill the role yourself'. If you had a useful guide to truth in this instance, your argument that it's wrong would be based on that, not just on your feelings.

My argument wasn't based on my feelings. It's based on your beliefs. I'm appealing to your belief that popularity isn't equivalent to correctness. And if you're going to pretend you don't believe that, I'm out, because you're not making an honest argument.

> An fellow intuitionist would see exactly what I was trying to do, and would help with his own intuitive understandings of business. A rationalist is only interested in reductive determination, so you reductively deduced me to 'sigma grindset' guy.

Wow, what self-congratulatory nonsense.

Maybe, the intuitionist isn't interested in helping you reduce the world into two deterministic roles: hustling business people and quality-focused engineers. Maybe, the intuitionist's experience has led them to a very different intuition, because they actually care about understanding what other people are doing instead of congratulating themselves for getting a business degree.

To use your silly terminology, the intuitionist solution to people like you dismissing pretty obvious facts isn't to argue facts, because you're more interested in sounding smart than in reality. The solution is to dismiss your nonsense as "sigma grindset bullshit" or some equally pejorative AND ACCURATE description. The argumentative equivalent of kicking the Nazi out of the bar.

Believe it or not, one can be an intuitionist without losing interest in the truth. One can both kick the Nazi out of the bar and argue against Nazism.

But hey, if you want to work yourself to death on a hustle that fails because you think hustling sounds masculine, have at that sigma grindset bro. All I ask is that you don't spread that mental illness.
by mtlmtlmtlmtl | 2025-06-17 04:56:42+00:00
I think this is too dismissive of the transformative power of psychedelic drugs. They absolutely can alter your life permanently. They certainly altered mine. I think, in a positive way. But that power cuts both ways. I also know people who had harrowing, traumatic experiences and developed PTSD.

My advice to people who haven't tried it tends to be that if you're scared, you should abstain. Your presuppositions of what the experience will be, will in themselves shape the experience. If you expect a bad time, you're likely to get one.

There's also a group of people who are curious about using psychedelics to treat mental disorder. My advice to those people is to find a way to do it in a clinical setting. Psychedelics have enormous potential for effectively curing anxiety disorders, but it's not just a matter of taking the drugs. The experience must be guided by a psychologist who knows what the goal is. And then integrated and processed afterwards, also with expert help. Psychedelucs are not a treatment in and of themselves, more like an accelerant of psychotherapy. The therapy is still necessary, it's just that psychedelics allow you to do in a handful of sessions what could take years in a sober patient. As a case in point, I have a severe anxiety disorder myself, and my many self-initiated experiments with psychedelics haven't magically cured it. If combined with therapy, it might have. I'm still waiting for clinical practice to catch up, so I can have psychedelic therapy.
by viraptor | 2025-06-17 04:58:42+00:00
Like a spec you'd hand to a contractor. List of requirements, some business context, etc. Not a formal algorithm spec.

My basic initial prompt for that is: "we're creating a markdown specification for (...). I'll start with basic description and at each step you should refine the spec to include the new information and note what information is missing or could use refinement."
by magicalhippo | 2025-06-17 05:00:41+00:00
This isn't really a battery. It's storing heat, to be used as-is for the towns centralized heating system. Thus you lose a lot less on the usage-side compared to if it was truly used as a battery, ie to generate electricity.

Here the "battery" is "charged" using electricity as input, however the electricity in Finland comes mostly from nuclear, wind or hydro[1], so should be able to utilize the renewable peaks well.

But yeah, I'd be surprised if this system would be as cost-effective if you didn't already have a centralized heating system to plug this into.

[1]: https://stat.fi/en/statistics/salatuo
by marklubi | 2025-06-17 05:01:32+00:00
Crap article. Please flag it so people don’t waste time reading it.

As an adrenaline junkie, this is like a Big Bang Theory version of the stereotypes that people have of something that they aren’t.

Live big, or go home. If you haven’t experienced the rush, you don’t know what it’s like. If you haven’t trained enough to understand the risks, you haven’t done the minimal amount that you should have.

Until I had my son, I didn’t expect to live past 40 (lots of broken bones and parts were involved, whatever, inconveniences).

My son changed my life though, and now I live mine for him.

I miss it dearly, but he would miss me more.
by sothatsit | 2025-06-17 05:02:11+00:00
A "specification" as in a text document outlining all the changes to make.

For example, it might include: Overview, Database Design (Migration, Schema Updates), Backend Implementation (Model Updates, API updates), Frontend Implementation (Page Updates, Component Design), Implementation Order, Testing Considerations, Security Considerations, Performance Considerations.

It sounds like a lot when I type it out, but it is pretty quick to read through and edit.

The specification document is generated by a planning prompt that tells Claude to analyse the feature description (the couple paragraphs I wrote), research the repository context, research best practices, present a plan, gather specific requirements, perform quality control, and finally generate the planning document.

I'm not sure if this is the best process, but it seems to work pretty well.
by Terr_ | 2025-06-17 05:02:49+00:00
I expect that comes from the contrast and synthesis between how the author is anticipating things will develop or be explained, versus what the other person actually provided and trying to understand their thought process.

What happens if the reader no longer has enough of that authorial instinct, their own (opinionated) independent understanding?

I think the average experience would drift away from "I thought X was the obvious way but now I see by doing Y you were avoid that other problem, cool" and towards "I don't see the LLM doing anything too unusual compared to when I ask it for things, LGTM."
Poll: Do "tech" companies design, build and distribute products
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-06-17 05:03:20+00:00
Products are traditionally physical, i.e., tanglble, goods

There are exceptions, e.g., what are sometimes referred to as "financial products" such as insurance, mortgage loans, pension funds, etc.

Do so-called "tech" companies market "products"
by bluefirebrand | 2025-06-17 05:05:11+00:00
This absolutely is intrinsic to the workflow

Using a package that hundreds of thousands of other people use is low risk, it is battle tested

It doesn't matter how good AI code gets, a unique solution that no one else has ever touched is always going to be more brittle and risky than an open source package with tons of deployments

And yes, if you are using an Open Source package that has low usage, you should be reviewing it very carefully before you embrace it

Treat AI code as if you were importing from a git repo with 5 installs, not a huge package with Mozilla funding
by oxidant | 2025-06-17 05:05:35+00:00
Of course that's what the industry is selling because they want to make money. Yes, it's easy to create a proof of concept but once you get out of greenfield into 50-100k tokens needed in the context (reading multiple 500 line files, thinking, etc) the quality drops and you need to know how to focus the models to maintain the quality.

"Write me a server in Go" only gets you so far. What is the auth strategy, what endpoints do you need, do you need to integrate with a library or API, are there any security issues, how easy is the code to extend, how do you get it to follow existing patterns?

I find I need to think AND write more than I would if I was doing it myself because the feedback loop is longer. Like the article says, you have to review the code instead of having implicit knowledge of what was written.

That being said, it is faster for some tasks, like writing tests (if you have good examples) and doing basic scaffolding. It needs quite a bit of hand holding which is why I believe those with more experience get more value from AI code because they have a better bullshit meter.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-06-17 05:07:39+00:00
Disney was Hewlett and Packard's first customer in 1939, or was at least among the very first. The 200A oscillators were used to calibrate theater sound hardware for presentations of 'Fantasia' (although https://www.hewlettpackardhistory.com/item/a-deal-with-disne... says the Disney versions were designated 200B.)

Does it look like the one in the photo on that site? Sounds like a very cool artifact. You can't always tell much from the serial number -- for example, notice that they started their model numbers with '200,' just to make the company look bigger and more reputable.
by supermatt | 2025-06-17 05:08:42+00:00
Clearly your intent is to be argumentative - but i'll bite:

They didn’t “go with nvidia”. Your ignorance is exactly why such a statement by the author is detrimental to the work done. The uninformed end up spreading misinformation.

The raw compute (the "booster") is only one part of the system. The rest - the cluster modules - are European-designed, including not just the SiPearl Rhea CPU (SiPearl, France), but also the system architecture and software stack (Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Germany), the interconnect (ParTec, Germany), and the cooling systems (Atos/Eviden, France). These cluster modules are integrated into the BullSequana XH3000 platform (Atos/Eviden, France). Fabrication is outsourced to TSMC (Taiwan), but the design remains fully European.

The fact is that the mission statement is to remain globally competitive in terms of computing power, and that means getting exascale as soon as possible. They aren’t going to wait for homegrown compute chips even if they were months away (which i doubt they will be).

By your logic all American supercomputers “went with Inria (France)”, because America is “starting from scratch” at writing software.. that they have software developers and chose to use European software is embarrassing.. see how stupid and ignorant such a statement is?
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-06-17 05:10:54+00:00
To offer a bit of hope, both the quality and amount of information available nowadays regarding accessibility is at an all-time high.

I remember comments from people who would downplay the difficulty of getting accessibility right despite the changing landscape of web development. Part of it was that web standards hadn't fully caught up in capabilities. But another part of it was just that there wasn't that much conscious effort from the open source community to treat accessibility as a priority.

Right now you can find really high quality packages with any kind of widget without sacrificing accessibility.
by pmontra | 2025-06-17 05:11:47+00:00
People instinctively or factually know that there are other apps that do basically the same thing for free.

It's the case for messaging apps and for almost any other kind of app. It's hard to beat the price point of a free app, even if it might include tracking, advertising, spying inside their package.

If WhatsApp would start asking for money hundreds of millions of people would switch to something else in a few days, even to a free app created overnight to capitalize on the opportunity.
by lurkshark | 2025-06-17 05:12:08+00:00
I have a pet theory that the world would be slightly better place if the United States Postal Service had launched a convenient and free (taxpayer-funded) email service before Google:

1. I think folks would be naturally more skeptical of the government than they are of big tech, ideally leading to E2EE for email that's usable by the masses.

2. Phishing and scams could have a dedicated law enforcement arm (Postal Inspectors).

3. We'd reduce the amount of email-based personal data being mined and turned into entirely unregulated ad-tech nightmares.
by citizenpaul | 2025-06-17 05:12:52+00:00
I've been told on and off my whole working life that tech jobs will dissapear because kids today all grew up with internet/computers/phones. Lol. If anything I think many are less competent than avg boomer. At least the boomers were scared into learning. The net generation just seems to assume things and don't actually understand what they are doing. The second something goes a little wrong they are helpless.

I kid you not I said "check the monitor" to some twentysomething and they said "i don't know tech jargon" so I said "display, screen?" " IDK" so I went and pointed this part you look at with your eyes and they said " oh the glass"
by Nursie | 2025-06-17 05:13:05+00:00
> If you do not have any inclination towards that mystic space, you will not get the ego death

I am as agnostic-atheist as they come and would go as far as to say I find mysticism offensive to good sense. But I've experienced the ego death parts of LSD, and consider I have come to know myself more through it. I don't think it reveals some fundamental truth outside myself so much as being simply a phenomenon of the action of psychedelics on my brain.

Frankly I think this idea that you have to be studied in philosophy or open to mystic woo-y nonsense to fully appreciate or even fully experience psychedelics is hilarious and self-aggrandising.
by autobodie | 2025-06-17 05:14:52+00:00
I think that's wrong. I only have to write code once, maybe twice. But when using AI agents, I have to read many (5? 10? I will always give up before 15) PRs before finding one close enough that I won't have to rewrite all of it. This nonsense has not saved me any time, and the process is miserable.

I also haven't found any benefit in aiming for smaller or larger PRs. The aggregare efficiency seems to even out because smaller PRs are easier to weed through but they are not less likely to be trash.
by animex | 2025-06-17 05:15:19+00:00
I write mostly boilerplate and I'd rather have the AI do it. The AI is also slow, which is great, which allows me to run 2 or 3 AI workspaces working on different tickets/problems at the same time.

Where AI especially excels is helping me do maintenance tickets on software I rarely touch (or sometimes never have touched). It can quickly read the codebase, and together we can quickly arrive at the place where the patch/problem lies and quickly correct it.

I haven't written anything "new" in terms of code in years, so I'm not really learning anything from coding manually but I do love solving problems for my customers.