MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mcphage | 2025-06-24 02:04:51+00:00
This isn’t about revenge or evening the score. OP described a problem (men don’t get anything out of relationships), and I’m offering a tried-and-tested solution to that problem.

And in the current US military, it isn’t a requirement for promotion to upper ranks to be married (honestly, I had thought it was, but it’s just a rumor), but it does seem to be strongly encouraged.
by ryanburnsworth | 2025-06-24 02:05:21+00:00
AddyAI is the first AI Co-Pilot for Google Ads. You connect to your Google Ads account and you are able to chat with your ads data. You might ask questions like "Why was the performance of Campaign X so low last week?" or "Should I increase my bids from $2.50 to $3.00 for keyword Y." Ask anything you want to know about your campaigns and get answers!
by patcon | 2025-06-24 02:05:45+00:00
I would love a generative llm script that looks at my command history (or something comparable), and adds a new zsh config (or other dotfile) every day, explaining itself via a reliable motd-type screen that flashes on-screen during the first session of the day, explaining what was added and allowing me to play with it and decide to keep it or not by the end of the day :)

Basically, slowly "evolving" my environment by forcing me to try new things daily, without my doing massive "learning" runs where I try batches of new things at once
by unyttigfjelltol | 2025-06-24 02:05:45+00:00
You're confused. This is not about the FBI's right to data, it's about the New York Times' right to the same. The doctrine you're referencing is irrelevant.

The magistrate is suggesting that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in chats OpenAI agreed to delete, at the request of users. This is bizarre, because there's no way for OpenAI to use data that is deleted. It's gone. It doesn't require abrogation of US law, it requires a sensible judge to sit up and recognize they just infringed on the privacy expectations of millions of people.
by andyferris | 2025-06-24 02:06:32+00:00
I'm not sure what the answer is - but I will say that LLMs do help me wrangle with essential complexity / real-world issues too.

Most problems businesses face have been seen by other businesses; perhaps some knowledge is in the training set or perhaps some problems are so easy to reason through that a LLM can do the "reasoning" more-or-less from first principles and your problem description.

I am speculating that AI will help with both sides of the No Silver Bullet dichotomy?
by an_guy | 2025-06-24 02:06:53+00:00
Why is it that whenever someone shares anecdotal evidence of their friend or family member being affected by a vaccine, the first response is mocking them for being against the medicine?

Suppose a commonly used drug caused severe reaction among a fringe group of people, you don't mock those people and call them anti-vax/unlucky. The pharma responsible for drug should look into the case and come up with guidelines for usage.
by whatthedangit | 2025-06-24 02:08:18+00:00
It's not ethical. But it makes sense why they're pandering and ignoring the fact that the system made a mistake in this situation.

The mistake was clear, but not life threatening in this particular instance. It was "almost" at the corner where they wanted to stop.

It's also pretty clear that they care more about appealing to Tesla and to Tesla fans than they do about being an honest review channel-for better or worse, Elon Musk has millions of followers who have established a parasocial relationship with his public persona and so they take criticism of him or his products as personal insults.

Putting that all together, what would they gain by complaining about it?

It would just alienate their viewers and the company that they rely on.

The smoothest response would have been to laugh it off and show self-awareness about it, but the next best response was probably just to ignore it.

Hopefully some real review channels are able to use the service and give real feedback.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-24 02:08:26+00:00
Paywalled, can't see. But if it's empirical, a positive correlation on top of a negative one, would be undistinguishable from no correlation. This in fact may be very common, but the bottom line is what the sum of the effects is rather than the individual forces.

Suppose the same can be said for alcohol and relaxation, if we see evidence of more heart attacks, it means the negative effect is bigger than the (hypothetical) positive.
Ask HN: How Do You Actually Use Claude Code Effectively?
by sukit | 2025-06-24 02:08:52+00:00
I'm trying to figure out the right and effective way to use Claude Code. So far, my experience hasn't matched what many in the community seem to rave about.

Often, it either generates convoluted implementations when simpler ones clearly exist, or it produces code that's riddled with bugs — despite confidently claiming it's correct. I'm wondering if I'm just not using it properly.

Here's my current workflow:

- I first talk to Gemini to gradually clarify and refine my requirements and design.

- I ask Gemini to summarize everything. Then I review and revise that summary.

- I paste the final version into Claude Code, use plan mode, and ask it to generate an implementation plan.

- I review the plan, make adjustments, and then let Claude Code execute it.

- Long wait…

- Review Claude’s output and clean up the mess.

For refactors and bugfixes, I usually write some tests in advance. But for new features, I often don’t.

It often feels like opening a loot box — 50% of the time it does a decent job, the other 50% is pretty bad. I really want to understand how to use it properly to achieve the kind of magical experience people describe.

Also, I’m on the Pro plan, and I rarely hit the rate limit — mainly because there’s a lot of prep work and post-processing I need to do manually. I’m curious about those who do hit rate limits quickly: are you running lots of tasks in parallel? Machines can easily parallelize, sure — but I don’t know how to make myself work in parallel like that.
by bediger4000 | 2025-06-24 02:09:12+00:00
FICO scores are a joke. They hint at what they use to calculate them, but the algorithms are kept secret. Fair Isaac can't reveal the algorithms, otherwise they'd get gamed. Incentives to keep bad info and wrong info in dossiers are strong, too. If allowed, Fair Isaac would put rumors and other bullshit on n your file, and never take it out.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-06-24 02:09:21+00:00
BNPL is 0% interest over N months. A credit card is 20% APY over the total balance over minimum payment. And it's offered by my CC providers.

For some larger purchases on a 12 month plan, leaving the money in savings loses me 1.5% cash back but gains me around 3% interest (after accounting for the depleting principle).

It would be stupid not to do it sometimes. I don't really get the financer's benefit. Though maybe it's because I do pay it, and if I didn't there would be 200% APY or something.
by mattmaroon | 2025-06-24 02:09:35+00:00
One interesting thing about Trump is he’s so deeply popular with the Republican base that he can win elections despite being drastically outspent by the opposition. He also uses tools like primaries and executive orders against those who oppose him.

So whereas a normal candidate may be concerned about upsetting the corporations that fund their election, Trump has built a little bit of insulation against that. He can (and does frequently) take on big corporations other politicians would feel the need to not alienate.

No other Republican would dare cross agribusiness.

He also, for the same reasons, is able to make Republican politicians adopt his positions. So if he wants to do something that democrats already want to do (and that’s not as uncommon as you might think; he was a Democrat for decades) it gets done easily.

RFK Jr is the worst person, but he deserves credit when he’s right.
by fasthands9 | 2025-06-24 02:10:02+00:00
I feel like that's true for most economic things but is that necessarily the case for things such as computation?

For instance, my understanding is that computers have been getting exponentially faster for 70 years.

I realize the thing they are modeling (intelligence?) is a bit hard to define so I hope/think they are wrong. But I'm not sure how to be so certain.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-06-24 02:10:24+00:00
Kind of, but the models also output really awful code, even if it appears to work, and people (especially juniors) will push that awful code into PRs and people eventually approve of it because there's engineers who don't care about the craft, only collecting a paycheck. Then when things break or slow down to a crawl, nobody has any idea how to fix it because its all AI generated goop.
by tehjoker | 2025-06-24 02:11:25+00:00
The principle is the rate of profit is falling, competing countries are rising, and they want to unleash the private sector in the hopes of raising GDP growth significantly enough to retain hegemony. This won't work, because they're fucking stupid, and they'll damage the health of the population and the productivity of the land and waters going forward, but there is a logic to it.
by k310 | 2025-06-24 02:12:16+00:00
Very late to this party, but here's my two cents worth:

"Random" advertising is completely irrelevant, and a total waste.

"Targeted" advertising is an unwanted intrusion on my privacy.

Advertising is a poison that demeans even love – and we're hooked on it -- George Monbiot [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/24/advert...
by mlyle | 2025-06-24 02:13:22+00:00
> It's unfounded conspiracy to bang on about how "they are clearly hiding something".

It's also a bit of a straw-man to put your own version of what someone's saying in their mouth.

Buying insurance and other mitigations against rare circumstances, outside of well regulated and well understood products in stable marketplaces, is really hard. You need to do your homework with the counterparties and be sure that incentives align well enough to get what you want.

Unfortunately, when you set up an incentive system, you tend to get exactly what you pay for-- whether that's what you want, or not.
by dsr_ | 2025-06-24 02:14:21+00:00
"Universal keyboard compatibility" -- bah!

I have working keyboards in my possession that this thing cannot connect to.

- No ADB port for a Mac keyboard

- No Sun Type 5 Mini-DIN

- No PS/2 port

- No PC keyboard port

- No Newton serial keyboard port

- No RJ11 for an LK-201

So much for universal.
by DidYaWipe | 2025-06-24 02:15:19+00:00
All good.

You can also find tons of instances of people referring to Apple's computers as MACs. And that one is even worse because MAC is an actual computer-hardware term.

So "RAW" may not be a well-known acronym, but it doesn't mean it will never be.

The Brits suffer from the opposite problem: making acronyms into regular proper names. It's endemic over there; their articles are replete with references to the nonexistent "Nasa," "Nato," and other entities. In at least one case in the last few years they did this to a piece of legislation where there was actually a British company with the name they were misusing.
by breckenedge | 2025-06-24 02:15:44+00:00
Make sure your project has a CLAUDE.md or CLAUDE.local.md. You can use Claude to help you come up with this. Use Claude to maintain a list of common, simple workflows and reference them in CLAUDE.md. It’s not great yet for large scale work or refactors but it’s getting better month-by-month. It may never be able to do big work in one-shot.

I run tasks in parallel and definitely hit the rate limits.
by kjellsbells | 2025-06-24 02:16:13+00:00
I see it more as like understanding how to use a hammer even if most of the time in your job you use a nailgun.

For me personally it's a classic old timer habit from the days when you had to be prepared to fix a system using only the tools in /sbin. That doesn't mean you should operate like that all the time, but you should certainly know how to do so and be comfortable doing it.
by eldaisfish | 2025-06-24 02:16:46+00:00
a couple of things to add to an excellent explanation.

I'm glad people are coming around to accepting that renewable energy has problems. We have some solutions to these problems but we do not have experience with them.

I agree entirely - the externalities of renewable energy are significant and are not paid for by the source of the problem - the renewable generators themselves.

Just as one example, what is the solution to an extended wind drought, say of a week or ten days? All the batteries in the world could not store enough energy for that.

A major challenge with renewable energy is that it is intermittent and variable but also unpredictable. it is impossible to predict wind speeds more than 24 or 36 hours out and even those predictions are often inaccurate. just building more wind turbines or solar panels won't cut it.

There is also the reluctance of grid operators to use the capacity available in renewable energy generators. The majority of wind turbines are capable of active and reactive power control but most grid operators either don't use this capacity or use it minimally.

A distribution connected wind turbine could do wonders for reactive power control but this is rarely done. More grid operators should pay for reactive power, like the UK is starting to do. This should also be sourced from EVs and small solar inverters.
by voskresenie | 2025-06-24 02:16:59+00:00
well, no. You can say that's what you're doing, and so can your future wife, but it's still incredibly easy to back out of if you change your mind, with few legal, economic, or social barriers to doing so.

On the one hand, these barriers can keep people trapped in truly abusive situations, and it is important for such people to be able to escape. But on the other, 'I don't love my husband/wife anymore', is not any great horror, and I'd hazard that most people who are happily married till death have had at least one long period, potentially of multiple years, where they don't feel as though they love their spouse. But they work through it and things improve. There's something about being 'trapped' with someone that motivates people to make things work in a way that they wouldn't if they know there is an out.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-06-24 02:17:15+00:00
> Can you give some examples?

I have reasons for being a bit cautious on giving details, but some hints on example areas are:

- Understanding the dynamics (mathematics) of some exotic markets that are currently outside of the focus of investors. Very interesting mathematics is involved, but this is too "mathy" for many economists, and (currently, because the rules of the market dynamic still have to be sufficiently understood) too "vague" for many mathematicians who work in academia.

- If you work on data integration problems and/or LoB business applications of some big, conservative companies, you begin to see that many of these problems are instances of deep abstract mathematical structures that are outside of the focus of the academic mathematicians who work in the respective academic area (think for example into the direction of algebraic geometry or algebraic topology): it is too "applied" for them. On the other hand, people in industry have a hate for people seeing these deep abstract patterns that could simplify the applications.

- If you look deeply into some business calculations, you might think that the mathematics that is used there is "easy". But if thus some "theory" describing the business calculations does not need to describe "complicated" things that (academic) mathematicians love to think about - wouldn't this mean that there could exist a great abstraction that simplifies these business calculations a lot in computer programs?

- If stochastics is used in, say, insurance industry in a much more "simple" way than in probability textbooks: couldn't there exist a much "simpler" (but likely very different) theory of stochastics that is sufficient to describe and solve the kind of questions that people in the respective industry care about (though for sure not the kind of questions that academic mathematicians who work in probability theory care about)? Again: people who work in industry hate employees who think about such questions. On the other hand, people in academia are interested in different questions.

- If you look at the source code of some historically grown (but business-critical) business application, you begin to understand that there is no known data structure documented in academic literature that can describe all these things. So you start deriving it on your own. The problem is: business people don't like such deep thinking about the "correct data structure" for their business problems. On the other hand, academic computer scientists are not interested in this question either, because the things that the data structure describes is deeply intrtwined with how the business processes of the respective company work.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-24 02:18:02+00:00
>Also, rejecting something out of hand simply because a lawyer didn't draft it seems really antithetical to what a judge should be doing. There is no requirement for a lawyer to be utilized.

This is 100% wrong. Pro Se litigation is well regulated, in the first case a non lawyer tried to file in representation of his company, which is not himself so it's not pro se, and you need to be a licensed lawyer to represent someone else.

"So because the lawsuit pertains to copyright, we can ignore possible constitutional issues because it'll make things take longer?"

Not quite, the contention is that the judge doesn't see how it would be successful, so it would be a delay that never addresses a constitutional issue by her judgment.
Show HN: I got tired of file chaos, so I built a digital porch (groostle.com)
by Biglakes | 2025-06-24 02:19:11+00:00
Email is still the world’s default way to send files - until it explodes with spam, “attachment too large” errors, lost docs, and platforms peeking at everything.

As a cybersecurity/GRC nerd, I got tired of chasing files across inboxes, portals, and sketchy upload forms just to get what I need, safely and privately.

Also, after auditing 100+ companies’ file-sharing systems (ISO 27001, PCI DSS), I realized:

92% of “secure” transfers still expose metadata.

Employees waste 3.1 hours/week managing permissions.

Every compliance officer I know is one mis-sent email away from a heart attack.

So I asked, "Why isn’t there a simple, private way to receive files—where only you can open them, no logins required, and zero chance of inbox overload?"

So I built Groostle: A privacy-first, secure “digital porch” where anyone can drop files for you—fully encrypted, no account needed, no platform snooping.

Groostle gives you:

Your permanent porch address (yourname.groostle.com) coming soon

Drop-off or pick-up: others send files, you pick them up (browser-side decryption, zero-knowledge).

No logins or signups required (for anonymous senders or recipients).

End-to-end encryption (XChaCha20 + Ed25519).

No metadata, no server-side plaintext, no tracking.

Porches claimed in 20+ countries since private beta

Free tier, with pro and team features coming

Use Groostle for:

Client handoffs (freelancers, designers)

Legal & HR docs (lawyers, recruiters, accountants)

Anonymous tips (journalists, NGOs, researchers)

Or anyone tired of file-sharing chaos

It’s not fully launched, but you can claim a porch and try it right now. Would love to hear what breaks, what’s missing, or if this scratches your itch for private, frictionless file sharing.

https://groostle.com

We’re actively working to prevent “porch spam” and abuse:

1. Cryptographic “Knocks” (optional approval flow): Require senders to request access via a cryptographically signed “knock.” Porch owners can approve/ignore (think of it as a digital doorbell).

2. Client-Side Malware Scanning: All dropped files can be scanned in-browser (ClamAV + WASM) before you decrypt. Privacy is preserved—no file leaves your device—but you get real malware protection.

3. Auto-Expiring Links: Temporary porches (groostle.com/temp123) self-destruct after 24 hours or a set number of uploads, so they can’t be spammed or scraped indefinitely.

On the roadmap:

Per-IP rate limiting and smart abuse detection (with privacy-respecting analytics)

One-click “Do Not Disturb” mode (pause porch or require passphrase for drops)

User block/report system for repeat offenders

Invite-only porches for when you need maximum peace and quiet

If you’ve seen clever anti-spam patterns in other privacy/messaging apps, or have war stories about intake abuse, I’d love your suggestions.

Would love your feedback, teardown, honest takes, or ideas to make this something people actually want! Be honest, be brutally honest!
by andrewflnr | 2025-06-24 02:19:34+00:00
The stock market tracks short term profits; most stock buyers are also short-termers. Profits that could have been had but were not, due to shortsighted decisions, are hard to measure and don't usually make the news. Similar for companies that slowly hollow out, or get killed by newer companies still in their market-building phases before they start turning the screws.
by lubujackson | 2025-06-24 02:20:05+00:00
What you are saying is true. In a way, programmers still need to think about and wrestle with architectural complexity. And I agree the biggest overall gain is adding another layer of abstraction. But combine those two things and suddenly you have junior engineers that can very quickly learn how to architect systems. Because that will be the bulk of the job and they will be doing it every day.

Once you remove all the roadblocks with syntax and language blindspots, the high cost of refactoring, the tedium of adding validation and tests, the challenges of integrating systems... suddenly, the work becomes more pure. Yes, you need to know how to do advanced structural things. But you don't need to learn very much about all the rest of it.

And we very quickly get to a point where someone who can break down problems into tidy Jira tickets is effectively programming. Programming was never really about learning languages but making computers do things, which is a transferrable skill and why so many engineers know so many languages.
by mbStavola | 2025-06-24 02:20:16+00:00
I decided to give Phoenix.new a spin to see where it stood in the field. Overall? Cool DevX but I'm not super impressed with the actual output.

I dumped $110 into it over the course of a day, just to give it a fair shake and see how far I could bring it. The first $40 or so was pretty productive and I had a cool little prototype. The last $70, however, was basically stuck in a death loop where it couldn't fix certain (obvious) problems.

It would read my feedback, do some tests (this feature is super cool by the way), and then declare that everything works. I would then click through the UI, see that nothing changed, and then reprompt. It would declare that, indeed, there is an error! It would go about on a tangent trying to solve it, declare victory, and then give a cutsey update about how it solved the issue. I then test, see that nothing changed, and then reprompt... ad infinitum (or at least until I stopped putting tokens in the machine). Honestly, now that I think about it, it feels like I paid these guys to get the standard Product Manager experience.

Of course, I can't be too harsh. This has been pretty much my experience with most AI products. I was hoping the way Phoenix.new was set up (where it plans it's work and tests itself) would achieve better results, but that seems not to really make a difference.
by crazygringo | 2025-06-24 02:21:40+00:00
No. You can rent and you can take the bus. Or rent and buy a crazy cheap old used car.

A house and a decent car are not primarily about making money. They're about your quality of life.

> And all recommend not using credit cards and instead an emergency fund if you lose your job.

And if you already used your emergency fund on, say, a medical emergency...?