MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mulmen | 2025-06-13 02:09:44+00:00
I really don’t think training an agent on “your style” is the future. We’re more adaptable than the agents.

I think programming is a job people don’t need to do anymore and anyone who called themselves a software engineer is now a manager of agents. Jira is the interface. Define the requirements.

Writing your own code will still be a thing. We’ll even call those people hackers. But it will be a hobby.
Show HN: I made an extension to discover useful programming concepts
by sahp | 2025-06-13 02:12:00+00:00
I wanted to showcase Knew Tab; a chrome extension I have been working on for a couple of weeks now. The idea is to introduce any beginner or intermediate programmer to concepts that might be useful in their workflow. Currently, it only supports Python but i'm working on adding support for almost any language. Personally, for a long time I did not know the existence of `collections.Counter` and how useful it can be, which is where the idea of Knew Tab came from. There are some rough edges and I would appreciate your feedback. As of now I have thought of the following changes in the next release:

- Support for more languages - Some way to save or export snippets that you like - Better styling for readability
by jagged-chisel | 2025-06-13 02:13:49+00:00
Ah, a kindred spirit. I have been drafting part time for a local firm, and I feel like i’m on the cusp of a brilliant concept for pulling documents together, presenting case status to the lead lawyer … but I don’t have the time to coalesce my inklings into a tool.

I think we technical folk need to build technical tools for us to use while we explore the space and iterate on something that the normies will accept.

If you find anyone willing to invest money so a team can spend time on this, please let me know! :-)
by a_tartaruga | 2025-06-13 02:16:07+00:00
3 weeks ago pair programming with Cursor in "Ask" mode and ignoring all agents was the most productive I could get with these tools.

Since then I've noticed this triple working really well:

1. Ask mode Cursor for my main track of development

2. o3 for learning about or checking up on approaches when more rigor is needed

3. Delegating parallel tasks to claude code on a separate machine

* small work I can describe in <3 sentences

* parallel debugging / explaining running at the same time I'm trying to figure something out to cross check work or preemptively give me some new ideas on debugging

* starting on bigger work that I'll mostly need to throw away and do myself but I'm going to procrastinate otherwise

Putting delegations somewhere else is key because I don't want my local environment to be polluted with a separate task.
by Analemma_ | 2025-06-13 02:16:43+00:00
Memory allocators are something I expect to rapidly degrade in the absence of continuous updates as the world changes underneath you. Changing page sizes, new ucode latencies, new security features etc. all introduce either outright breakage or at least changing the optimum allocation strategy and making your old profiling obsolete. Not to mention the article already pointed out one instance where a software stack (KDE, in that case) used allocation profiles that broke an earlier version completely. Even though that's fixed now, any language runtime update or new feature could introduce a new allocation style that grinds you down.

As much as it's nice to think software can be done, I think something so closely tied to the kernel and hardware and the application layer, which all change constantly, never can be.
by gpm | 2025-06-13 02:16:52+00:00
On the other hand battery prices are dropping exponentially. There's a good argument to be made that your battery is a depreciating asset not (just) because it's degrading, but because the technology is getting cheaper, and thus you should extract as much value from it as possible as quickly as possible (and then replace it).

The caveat to this market is who knows how much of a premium you'll end up paying to replace the battery given that it's attached to a certain model of car.
by panzi | 2025-06-13 02:17:38+00:00
There is posix_spawn(). Some operating systems even implement that as a system call (not Linux). Implementing that as a system call has the advantage that spawning a new process from a process that has huge memory mapping is fast, because the memory mappings don't need to be copied (yes, I know the memory is copy on write, but the mappings themselves have to be correctly copied with the information needed for copy on write).
by MangoCoffee | 2025-06-13 02:17:40+00:00
I'm a .NET developer working on backend for the last 7 years. I used to work with WinForms, WebForms, and ASP.NET MVC 5. Lately, I've been wanting to get back into frontend development using Blazor.

I have the GitHub Copilot for $10, and I’ve been "vibe coding" with it. I asked the AI to give me an example of a combo box, and it gave me something to start with. I used a Bootstrap table and asked the AI to help with pagination, and it provided workable code. of course to seasoned frontend developer, what i'm doing is simple but i haven't work on front end for so long, vibing with AI have been a good expereinces.

Of course, it's not perfect. For example, it gave me some authentication code that just didn’t work. Still, I’ve found AI to be like a “smart” Google, it doesn’t judge me or tell me my question is a duplicated like Stack Overflow.
by pixl97 | 2025-06-13 02:17:44+00:00
Evolution is messy and guided by random occurrences.

Early in the internet days I had ran an open SMTP server for a few years before it was used as a spam relay. The web browser didn't have a security model. Online shopping was going up to a site, writing what you wanted on paper, then mailing off a money order.

Then both fraud and useful things like actual online shopping started happening while the size of the web exploded. Masses of people with no technical capability were getting online. And that's before we got to the age of social media and massive data collection.

Simply put we didn't make the 'web' part of the internet, some people tossed it out as a child and it's been a tooth and nail fight for survival ever since, patching itself up one vuln at a time.
by xddj | 2025-06-13 02:20:44+00:00
That's a very clever approach — I hadn't even thought of factoring the target value like that.

Decomposing `0x08C0C166` into `2⁴ × 3 × 5⁵ × 11 × 89 + 1` and reusing parts like `11 = 10 + 1` and `89 = 10² - 11` is genuinely interesting.

Still, as you said, packing all the necessary manipulations into just 17 instructions is the real challenge — especially when you try to avoid any immediate constants, memory access, or stack usage.

If you do find a shorter sequence that matches the constraints exactly, please share! I’d love to see how far this can be optimized.
by xddj | 2025-06-13 02:21:13+00:00
Yes, you're absolutely right — the initial `xor cl, cl` is technically redundant if we assume all registers are zeroed at start, as stated in the problem.

I kept it in the solution mostly out of habit and to make the logic more explicit, but you're correct that it could be removed, bringing the count down to 16.

That said, for consistency (and because some AI models needed it to understand the logic flow), I still include it when comparing instruction count across different versions.

But you're totally right: under the problem's assumptions, `xor cl, cl` is free.
by jmyeet | 2025-06-13 02:21:15+00:00
I watched a video recently that talked about how China is really the only country to have developed and built UHVDC power transmission. Some look at this and say how it's a failure of everyone else. My immediate thought was: "this solves aproblem only China has" and that turned out to be correct.

China produces most of its power in the west of the country between solar farms, the Three Gorges Dam and so on. Most of the population is 2000 miles away in the east of the country. For over a billion people, the cost of more efficient long-distance transmission make economic sense.

Someone asked "could Australia do this to transmit solar power from the West coast to the east coast in peak hours?". Technically? Yes. Practically? No. Why? It's obviously expensive with far fewer people but also all that space in between is uninhabited. So if you ever need to maintain it (which you will) you have to send people out into the wilderness to do it. China doesn't have that problem because it's not really unpopulated anywhere, at least not to the scale Australia is.

My point here is that you should always ask for something like this "what problem does it solve?" And the answer for more efficient long-distance power transmission is "almost nobody".

I think power grids are going to go in the other direction and become increasingly localized rather than nationalized.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-06-13 02:21:24+00:00
I usually interact with LLMs in English. A few weeks ago I made a Gemini gem that tries to consider two opposite sides, moderator included. Somehow it started including bits of Spanish in some of its answers, which I actually don't mind because that's my primary language.

I assumed it knew I speak Spanish from other conversations, my Google profile, geolocation, etc. Maybe my English has enough hints that it was learned by a native Spanish speaker?
Ask HN: Seeking ways to improve my planning skills and follow-through
by skuuuLaPoo | 2025-06-13 02:21:57+00:00
I’m good at routines and habits, so my baseline productivity is solid, but I often struggle to break down larger, abstract goals into clear, actionable steps. For example, goals like "get a higher-paying job with more interesting coworkers" can feel overwhelming unless I outline specific tasks like researching the job market, learning relevant skills, or setting clear milestones.

I’d like to get better at this planning skill, turning broad goals into manageable steps, and am looking for recommendations:

Practical books or articles on planning and goal-setting.

Useful frameworks or techniques you've personally tried.

Courses, coaching, or communities that focus on this skill.
by godelski | 2025-06-13 02:22:18+00:00
Relativity applies to mass too. Accelerate and you become heavier.

Remember, mathematically, a blackhole is mass in an infinitely small point. You are dividing by 0. I don't know the answer, but if someone is saying that from the outside the apparent mass is different than from the inside, that doesn't set off any alarm bells. We literally are talking about Dr Who style "it's bigger on the inside". Even the ladder example should make you think about mass. Without relativistic effects the mass inside the barn is only part of the ladder. With relativity, the whole ladder, and thus mass, is inside. So yeah, weird things happen.
by thwarted | 2025-06-13 02:24:09+00:00
That's great. But my point is that the style and approach doesn't matter when you can spend 30 seconds producing something that you'll never have a reason to look at the inside of and you can throw away and regenerate. "Look, it can write code just like yours!" is said as if that's a selling point to use it. Consistency, in style and approach, has been talked about for decades because it's important for the humans who are involved with the code. But using an LLM to generate the code also means no human will ever need to be maintaining it, or at least that's what's really being sold with LLM code generation, so none of the things that are important to humans matter at all.
by Spivak | 2025-06-13 02:25:37+00:00
> Proponents of these assessment systems argue that they can create more efficient public services by doing more with less and, in the case of welfare systems specifically, reclaim money that is allegedly being lost from the public purse.

I think more so than anything to do with AI this is the problem. The system was designed from the beginning to suck because it's meant to reject applications. Imagine the same system designed specifically to help people get their application approved. It checks for mistakes in real time and prompts users to correct them before the application is even submitted. Great, right? Way better than before, helping people who are new to navigating the system with a machine that's an expert at it.

But when these tools are sold as cost-cutting software of course they're going to suck. You don't even need AI, the algorithm could just be roll a die and deny 20% of applications right off the top. It's sad how effective this would be. The article is a laundry list of autonomous systems designed with the same parameters and the same goals, just pay out less. I appreciate them for trying to do better this time but in the end…

> While it had been designed to reduce the number of welfare applicants flagged for investigation, it was flagging more.
by godelski | 2025-06-13 02:26:13+00:00
lol dude, they already have my credit card. Look back at the OP. You're arguing that a phone number costs money so pushes people out. You know what else costs money?...

Stop doing things just because others do it. You'll never find a better way if you're always following. You'll never find better ways if you just accept things as they are. If you never push back. Let's be real, the number isn't about identity verification. They have my name and credit card. Unless by "verification" you mean cross matching me with other databases with the intent to sell that information.

You keep pestering me but you won't ask why they need that data. Like you just accept things at face value?
by tlopensource | 2025-06-13 02:26:14+00:00
Software Name TL-RTC-APP

Platform Browser-based, cross-platform, mobile-friendly

App Description A high-quality, open-source real-time communication (IM) application supporting group chat, friends, messaging, video calls, live streaming, file preview/editing/sharing, clipboard syncing, customizable themes, and more.

Currently Completed and Open-Sourced Features:

Group chat

Friend system

Real-time messaging

File sending

Collaborative whiteboard

Emoji support

Quick messages

@Mention users

Local screen recording

Voice calls

Video calls

Customizable themes and color schemes

Encrypted request handling

Role-based identity and permission authentication

Detailed account settings

Customizable navigation bar

Customizable home page

Admin backend management

Backend management for groups, friends, organizations, and users

Tons of hidden, practical features...

Currently Completed Paid Features:

Multi-user live streaming (supports audio / webcam / screen mixing)

Multi-user screen sharing (supports audio / webcam / screen mixing)

Online file editing, previewing, sharing, and storage (private cloud drive)

P2P file transfer (optimized for large files with direct transmission)

Text clipboard syncing

Remote webpage control via browser
by southernplaces7 | 2025-06-13 02:26:31+00:00
You do understand that an Iranian can hate the regime in their country and at the same time, have zero love or respect for Israel and its government's (at least currently) insane tendencies and bullying tactics.

I say that as someone who previously always defended Israel's responses to its neighbors and the country's better aspects. I'm hard pressed to do the same after months of that raving imbecile Netanyahu's grotesque policy of annihilation in Gaza. I just don't know how to call it anything else. Even if he has a legitimate mandate to destroy Hamas (no flower-power, peace-loving band of idealists themselves by the way) starving children to death through blockades has absolutely no justification.
by Smeevy | 2025-06-13 02:26:32+00:00
It's actually quite simple.

Ted Kennedy was elected by a plurality of his constituents many, many times. There was a campaign for each one of his terms and he won. Not so much "hired" as "elected." If the Republicans of that era could have unseated him, I presume they would have. In fact, the question that you may do better to ask is, "why couldn't a conservative in Massachusetts unseat someone with that much baggage?"

RFK and Pete Hegseth, whom I presume the earlier poster was alluding to because of his confirmed alcoholism, were appointed by the current President and confirmed by the Senate. There was no campaign and they were approved largely along party lines, which is more akin to "hiring" and that is an obviously less exhaustive process.

I can only assume that your connection to this was, "haha booze... Ted Kennedy!" Maybe you could graduate to parroting a different joke from Rush Limbaugh? Why don't you sample something from the "I do not think that 12-year old Chelsea Clinton is attractive" section?"
by bobjordan | 2025-06-13 02:27:14+00:00
I got frustrated with the new o3-pro mode today. I just wasted a few hours of my day waiting 15-20 minutes for answers that were totally out of line with the workflow I've had since the first o1-pro model came out. It's a completely different beast to work with. It feels like it hits output limits way easier, and you have to work around it. Today after I finally gave up, I just told the model I was disappointed and asked it to explain its limitations. It was actually helpful, and told me I could ask for a download link to get a file that wasn't cut off. But why should I have to do that? It's definitely not more user-friendly and totally the opposite experience as working with Google Gemini 2.5 pro. Honestly, this experience made it obvious how much harder OpenAI's models are to work with now compared to Google's. I've been using Gemini 2.5 Pro and it's super hard to find its limits. For the $20 I spend, it's not even a competition anymore. My new workflow is clear: throw everything at Gemini 2.5 Pro to get the real work done, then maybe spot-check it with the OpenAI models. I'll probably just migrate to the top Gemini ultra tier when the “deep thinking” mode is available. I'm just not happy with the openai experience on any of their models after getting used to the huge context window in Gemini. OpenAI used to at least keep me happy with o1-pro but now that they removed it and o3-pro kind of sucks to work with taking 20 minutes to output and have lower confidence in the time spent, I don’t think I have a reason to default to them anymore. Gemini is definitely more user friendly and my default option now.
by majormajor | 2025-06-13 02:27:37+00:00
The more expensive a transaction, the more crap. Houses are worse than cars!

But then if you spend enough more you get into super fancy squads of lawyers territory and a lot more due diligence and contracts.

The sweet spot for scams it:

* rare enough for the average person that they won't do too many in their life, and so it would be high effort to become an expert

* not quite expensive enough that all your potential buyers can lawyer up

Kinda funny that we put up with it. It's not adding value to the economy.
by pixl97 | 2025-06-13 02:29:16+00:00
I was on a vacation in the last week and was waiting at a restaurant for a while. The lady behind me was seemingly switching between english and spanish every few sentences which caught my attention. I can only assume the person on the other side was a bilingual also. Someone in their family had a medical emergency and was in the hospital. What's interesting is it seemed like the sentences talking about medical stuff were in very good english, and the spanish sentences were about other things (I can't interpret very fast at all). With the speed and fluency of their conversation it seemed like there was not any cost on their part using either language.
by CharlesW | 2025-06-13 02:31:10+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicBrainz

”MusicBrainz was founded in response to the restrictions placed on the Compact Disc Database (CDDB), a database for software applications to look up audio CD information on the Internet. MusicBrainz has expanded its goals to reach beyond a CD metadata (information about the performers, artists, songwriters, etc.) storehouse to become a structured online database for music.”

More detail here: https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/771/papers/ieeeIntelligentSystem...
by returningfory2 | 2025-06-13 02:31:31+00:00
Canada the country, being a democracy, is owned by the Canadian people, not the king (just like the United States is owned by the American people, not the president). If Trump encroaches on the sovereignty of Canada it is an affront to the Canadian people. What the British think is of distinctly secondary importance.

I'm not sure you see the irony of your stance. You're complaining about the American president butting into Canadian affairs because it infringes on some supposed colonialist rights of an absentee king.
by GuB-42 | 2025-06-13 02:31:48+00:00
system() is for running shell commands and the article complains that it runs shell commands...

I rarely use it, and almost never in production, but it has its place. Think of it as the eval() of the POSIX world. If you want to build pipelines, or anything a shell has to offer, and do it simply, then system() is for you.

Security-wise, if you are using system() with user input, you are essentially giving shell access to the user, which may or may not be a big deal. If the intended users are people who already have a shell, that's fine maybe even desitable, otherwise, use something else, like exec*().

As for OpenSSH, what is the problem? The "SH" at the end means "shell", it runs shell commands, what did you expect?
by roenxi | 2025-06-13 02:32:29+00:00
> This is a illogical position to hold, because clearly nobody applies that same logic about everything else the federal government spends money on.

That doesn't make it illogical, to make it illogical you'd have to do something like identify a fallacy. The same logic does apply to most of the things the US Federal government spends money on; the US baby boomers built a really stupid system that has destroyed a lot of potential for prosperity. In the US, anyway, China has been having a great time.

> If Texans want ...

I don't know where you're going with that paragraph, so I suppose I'll just agree with it. Doesn't sound entirely reasonable to me (US States aren't supposed to maintain things that look like armies and the idea might fall foul of that; but it also might not).

> ... It's a zero sum game: as a Californian, your tax dollars (whether state or federal) are now going to more objectively horrible things ...

The ideal would be Trump cuts spending, cuts taxes and then the Californians take their taxes and spend it on science funding.

I doubt that is going to happen, but the problem here is the taxes and the stuff Congress is going to be funding instead. Complain about that. If it was just a case of cut spending-cut-taxes then there is nothing stopping US citizens funding science to the same tune with the same money in a way that is more responsive to the details of what is going on. It was always a bad idea to route it through the Federal government, they don't have the bandwidth to debate this sort of issue when the world is looking like it might descend into a large multi-front conflict that could end up worse than WWII and there are riots and military deployments inside the US. It isn't important enough to deserve Congressional attention.
by mindcrime | 2025-06-13 02:32:46+00:00
LLM's aren't humans and there's no reason to expect their "thinking"[1] to behave exactly - or even much - like human thinking. In particular, they don't need to "think" in one language. More concretely, in the DeepSeek R1 paper[2] they observed this "thought language mixing" and did some experiments on suppressing it... and the model results got worse. So I wouldn't personally think of it as an "error", but rather as just an artifact of how these things work.

[1]: By this I mean "whatever it is they do that can be thought of as sorta kind roughly analogous to what we generally call thinking." I'm not interested in getting into a debate (here) about the exact nature of thinking and whether or not it's "correct" to refer to LLM's as "thinking". It's a colloquialism that I find useful in this context, nothing more.

[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.12948