MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by eddythompson80 | 2025-06-30 22:51:21+00:00
Yes, you can see the insanely accelerated pace of bankruptcies or "strategic realignments" among AI startups.

I think it's just game theory in play and we can do nothing but watch it play out. The "up side" is insane, potentially unlimited. The price is high, but so is the potential reward. By the rules of the game, you have to play. There is no other move you can make. No one knows the odds, but we know the potential reward. You could be the next T company easy. You could realistically go from startup -> 1 Trillion in less than a year if you are right.

We need to give this time to play itself out. The "odds" will eventually be better estimated and it'll affect investment. In the mean time, just give your VC Google's, Microsoft's, or AWS's direct deposit info. It's easier that way.
by groos | 2025-06-30 22:51:33+00:00
It's the general ellipsoid formula: x*2/a*2 + y*2/b*2 + z*2/c*2 = 1, where a, b and c are all unequal. The interesting part is actually that this shape could be made of a liquid, held by gravitation and maintain this asymmetrical shape. Normally, one would imagine it would be ellipsoid of revolution, where two of the axes are equal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid

To make a plot in software such as JMol, you really need parametric equations, which are also given in the above page.
by wglb | 2025-06-30 22:51:46+00:00
> Legacy codebases can eventually become more expensive to maintain than to rewrite

I'm wondering what the cost would be of rewriting Chrome, at 20 to 30 million lines of code, in Rust?

I suspect that despite the memory unsafety, the cost of maintaining it in its current form is vastly lower than this.

Plus, any rewrite will certainly introduce new bugs, some of them temporarily serious. Did you see the post years back about a Rust program that exhibited the Heartbleed bug?

These new bugs need to be taken into account when estimating the cost of rewrite.
by tsukikage | 2025-06-30 22:51:58+00:00
Cheapest rice I can easily get here in the UK, equivalent to ~1600JPY/5kg: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/314300009

Cheapest rice I am actually willing to eat, ~3000JPY/5kg: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/293247162

Shortgrain rice, such as Japanese rice, tends to be even more expensive than that.

That said, no idea where whatever it is the article is quoting the price of falls on that scale.
by Arubis | 2025-06-30 22:53:01+00:00
Working on RSOLV.ai - automated security vulnerability remediation. Currently a one-man shop.

The insight: Most security scanners find problems but don't fix them. Industry average time to fix critical vulnerabilities is 65+ days. We generate the actual fixes and create PRs automatically, including educational content on the nature of the vulnerability and the fix in the PR description.

Technical approach: - AST-based pattern matching (moved from regex, dropped false positives from 40% to <5%) - Multi-model AI for fix generation (Claude, GPT-4, local models) - ~170 patterns across 8 languages + framework-specific patterns; can grow this easily but need more customer validation first.

Business model experiment: Success-based pricing - only charge when fixes get merged ($15/PR at the moment). No upfront costs. This forces us to generate production-quality fixes & hopefully reduces friction for onboarding.

Early observation: Slopsquatting (AI hallucinating package names that hackers pre-register) is becoming a real attack vector. It's pretty straightforward to nail and has a lot of telltales. Building detection & mitigation for that now.

Stack: Elixir/Phoenix, TypeScript, AST parsers

https://rsolv.ai
Ask HN: Which skill do you believe will take the longest to be replaced by AI?
by atleastoptimal | 2025-06-30 22:54:15+00:00
There is a lot of debate whether AI will surpass humans in all economically viable skills (AGI, by one definition). Regardless of whether this will happen, or when, many people already have lost their jobs in part due to the emerging capabilities of AI models, including writing, document analysis, design, art, etc.

This leaves many in a position where they fear they will be next on the chopping block. Many assume physical tasks will take longer since it will take longer to build up, verify and test humanoid robots vs. some virtual AI agent. However, many believe the writing is on the wall either way, and those in domains involving using their hands or bodies will only have a few more years than the formerly employed white-collar class.

Which skills then, or combinations of skills, do you believe will be safest for staying employed and useful if AI continues improving at the rate it has been for the past few years?
by tmerc | 2025-06-30 22:55:26+00:00
For under 47k, (off the top of my head) you can buy a Subaru BRZ, Toyota gr86, Toyota gr Corolla, Honda Civic type r, Subaru WRX, VW gti... None of those are budget conscious family cars so something is off with that average car price you quoted. You can buy a Nissan versa for under 18k today. https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan/specs-tr... .
by puppycodes | 2025-06-30 22:56:46+00:00
definitly an atrocious violation of privacy, but in reality discerning between an animal, something blowing in the wind, and a person moving would be very hard without a dedicated calibrated array for that to hold up in court. I'm aware they have "exclude animal" but theres no way its at all accurate.

Using your mobile data and internet traffic is far easier and already deeply integrated into off the shelf law enforcement products. Those progams are even more terrifying than this by an order of magnitude.
by mdaniel | 2025-06-30 22:56:53+00:00
> it's time to plan your move to self-hosted.

No, it's always time to plan the move to self hosted, and just occasionally choose someone else to be the "self." Because once a proprietary vendor gets in the stack, evicting them is going to be a project

I'm aware that this doesn't split cleanly down the "saas only feature" or the evil "rug pull" axes, but I'd much rather say "I legitimately tried to allow us to eject from the walled garden and the world changed" versus "whaddya mean non-Datadog?"
by furyofantares | 2025-06-30 22:57:22+00:00
I've seen a lot of cases where, if you look at the context you're giving the model and imagine giving it to a human (just not yourself or your coworker, someone who doesn't already know what you're trying to achieve - think mechanical turk), the human would be unlikely to give the output you want.

Context is often incomplete, unclear, contradictory, or just contains too much distracting information. Those are all things that will cause an LLM to fail that can be fixed by thinking about how an unrelated human would do the job.
by _proofs | 2025-06-30 22:58:40+00:00
because i work on a legacy project that is coupled to safety regulations and other quality guarantees, and we cannot just simply roll out a solution ported to c++ on the next release, or even tenth, so perhaps we make it work until we can.

however we can set a standard and expectation for new projects to use c++, and we do and set an expectation to target a specific std.

i see this sentiment quite a lot on hackernews -- feels like a lot of people saying "git gud" -- i would expect a lot more nuance applied here.
by creato | 2025-06-30 22:58:49+00:00
> They got 17 year sentences and Biden let them out nearly immediately.

This is grossly incorrect. Conahan was incarcerated in 2011, and sent to home confinement in 2020 (panedemic), and the remainder of his sentence was commuted in 2024. He served 13 years of a 17.5 year sentence.

Ciavarella was not pardoned and is scheduled to be released in 2034.
by gangstead | 2025-06-30 22:58:52+00:00
My first question is doesn't blocking a listing that wasn't listed on Zillow just give the selling agent more of the exclusivity that they were trying to get?

My other question is why would a home seller agree to the exclusive inventory arrangement? It doesn't seem like it leads to higher prices or quicker sales (the article says that 94% of listings in Compass' exclusive inventory ended up selling via MLS).
by weepinbell | 2025-06-30 22:58:52+00:00
> I can't see how you're accounting for the cost/value of the use of the property

That's what the rent/buy calculators are doing! It's summing up all the cash flows for owning a property (down payment, mortgage, taxes, maintenance, etc, and then crucially selling it after 30 or so years) and for renting a property (rent, and investment income from money that would have otherwise went to down payment/mortgage), and telling you how the results differ.

All I'm doing is tweaking 2 of the parameters of these calculators: The rate the home appreciates in value, and the rate cash investments appreciate in value. Everything else stays the same.
by rfwhyte | 2025-06-30 22:59:43+00:00
The thing you're missing here is that the automakers have spent billions upon untold billions of dollars lobbying politicians and on PR campaigns targeted at the public to convince people that literally the ONLY way American cities could possibly exist is in a form that is utterly dependent upon the automobile.

Transit ridership in the US was higher in the 1950s than it is today and it was the automakers that killed public transit. They literally bought up popular and profitable public transit companies just to shut them down so people would be forced to drive.

The problem isn't "Consumerism" it's a culture of car dependency that's largely the result of intentional action on the part of the automakers to grow and protect their profits.

The reason there's so much auto loan debt in the US is people literally HAVE TO OWN a car just to get to work to support their families in the vast majority of US towns and cities. People don't want to go into debt just so they can buy some shitty fucking KIA so they can sit in traffic for two+ hours a day so they can get to one of their three minimum wage jobs, but when the alternative is being unemployed and homeless, a lot of folks will do what they have to do to provide for themselves and their families.
by weepinbell | 2025-06-30 23:00:02+00:00
I can definitely make this more clear, but this is specifically only changing the home appreciation and asset appreciation rates that produce that $1.5M change. I used the topline numbers at the beginning of the blog post, which is the national 20th percentile for housing growth and S&P growth. Everything else (local factors like price, rent, mortgage interest, property taxes) is held equal.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-30 23:00:58+00:00
The difference is that those evil things are second order effects. Nobody in the executive suite at FB was saying "Damn, this genocide is super profitable, let's stole the flames".

Nobody at Roblox is saying "We want to have children do nothing else except play Roblox from dawn to dusk, we lobby against schooling and extra-curiculars to increase Roblox time"

Apple however very intentionally made messaging people not on iPhones painful, and purposely made it out like androids were inferior. They purposely make it so you lose your group chats if you leave iPhone.

Thats why it's the most evil. It's a planned system to use peoples social connections as pawns to rope people into Apples ecosystem. This isn't hypothetical, or "C'mon of course they are saying that!". There are court documents that show it.
by JacksonAllan | 2025-06-30 23:01:04+00:00
I think the idea of using a union to store the element type without any extra run-time memory cost might have some use, specifically in cases where the container struct wouldn't typically store a variable of the element type (or, more likely, a pointer to the element's type) but we want to slip that type information into the struct anyway.

However, the problem that I have with this idea as a general solution for generics is that it doesn't seem to solve any of the problems posed by the most similar alternative: just having a macro that defines a struct. The example shown in the article:

#define List(type) union { \ ListNode *head; \ type *payload; \ }

could just as easily be:

#define List(type) struct { \ type *head; \ /* Other data, such as node/element count... */ \ }

(As long as our nodes are maximally aligned - which they will be if they're dynamically allocated - it doesn't matter whether the pointer we store to the list head is ListNode *, type *, void *, or any other regular pointer type.)

The union approach has the same drawback as the struct approach: untagged unions are not compatible with each other, so we have to typedef the container in advance in order to pass in and out of functions (as noted in the article). This is broadly similar to the drawback from which the "generic headers" approach (which I usually call the "pseudo-template" approach) suffers, namely the need for boilerplate from the user. However, the generic-headers/pseudo-template approach is guaranteed to generate the most optimized code thanks to function specialization[1], and it can be combined with another technique to provide a non-type-prefixed API, as I discuss here[2] and demonstrate in practice here[3].

I'd also like to point to my own approach to generics[4] that is similar to the one described here in that it hides extra type information in the container handle's type - information that is later extracted by the API macros and passed into the relevant functions. My approach is different in that rather than exploiting unions, it exploits functions pointers' ability to hold multiple types (i.e. the return type and argument types) in one pointer. Because function pointers are "normal" C types, this approach doesn't suffer from the aforementioned typedef/boilerplate problem (and it allows for API macros that are agnostic to both element type/s and container type). However, the cost is that the code inside the library becomes rather complex, so I usually recommend the generic-headers/pseudo-template approach as the one that most people ought to take when implementing their own generic containers.

[1] https://gist.github.com/attractivechaos/6815764c213f38802227...

[2] https://github.com/JacksonAllan/CC/blob/main/articles/Better...

[3] https://github.com/JacksonAllan/Verstable

[4] https://github.com/JacksonAllan/CC
by bag_boy | 2025-06-30 23:01:16+00:00
Anecdotally, I’ve found that chatting with Claude about a subject for a bit — coming to an understanding together, then tasking it — produces much better results than starting with an immediate ask.

I’ll usually spend a few minutes going back and forth before making a request.

For some reason, it just feels like this doesn't work as well with ChatGPT or Gemini. It might be my overuse of o3? The latency can wreck the vibe of a conversation.
by winocm | 2025-06-30 23:01:40+00:00
Don't forget the infamous pattern used in some C projects too:

struct foo decl = { .member = /* ... */ .next = &(struct nested_pointer) { .nested_member = /* ... */, }, .array = (struct nested_array[]) { [0] = { /* ... */ }, } };

This pattern does not work in C++ as the nested declarations become temporaries.
by PaulHoule | 2025-06-30 23:01:47+00:00
My main 2-channel system is a Denon AV Receiver with a burned out video board, two Panasonic speakers I got for 1/10 the original cost and a stack of obsolete audio sources (two tape decks and a minidisc player) next to a M4 Mac Mini with a USB audio out that has coax, optical and analog outs so I have all the bases covered. By far the computer is the most common playback source.
by protocolture | 2025-06-30 23:01:49+00:00
My grandparents had the same 3 VHS units in their house until they moved to digital tv.

We only ever replaced ours once.

A mate of mine had 4 in a stack for the purpose of duplicating and distributing VHS tapes illegally. I think 1 of them stopped working.

Another mate had one that wouldnt rewind faster than playback speed. But they just returned the tapes in dickhead mode rather than paying for a new VCR.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-30 23:02:04+00:00
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?

A typical ICE is most efficient when running at moderate load and somewhere between 1800 and 3000 RPM. That's what happens naturally at highway speeds, which is why traditional ICE cars get better MPG on the highway than in the city, and why hybrids run the engine on the highway.

Hybrids gain a large advantage in stop and go traffic because then they can recover energy through regenerative braking and contribute it back when accelerating, which allows the ICE to either run within its peak efficiency range or not run at all.

So on the highway a hybrid is basically doing the same thing as a normal car. It might eek out a little more efficiency by using electric boost when going up hill and regen when going down hill to keep the engine load more consistent, but it's nearly the same. But highway miles are what put the least amount of wear on a car.

It's stop and go traffic that causes the most wear because then you're putting high loads on the engine during acceleration (and using lower gears which require more engine revolutions per distance traveled) and burning through brake pads during deceleration. Which is the thing hybrids avoid doing by using the electric motor.

> But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.

When alternators or starter motors go bad it's commonly the components like brushes in DC alternator/generators or the clutch pulley or solenoid that hybrid motors don't have to begin with because hybrids typically use AC motors permanently connected to the drive shaft. AC motors are extremely reliable and will typically outlast the rest of the vehicle.
by puppycodes | 2025-06-30 23:02:06+00:00
im very skeptical of the accuracy claimed. The layout and complexity of objects in most homes to do this is way to awkward to work reliably.

For someone breathing or a heartbeat you need much higher GHz signal. Usually this is done at 30ghz to 60ghz. The power flux leaving the antenna has an inverse square drop off rate which makes this basically impractical unless your standing directly in front of it.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-06-30 23:03:30+00:00
> Why do you think that the human mind can contain semantics but a machine cannot? [...] Why do we believe that semantics can exist in the human mind but cannot exist in the internals of a machine?

Because I know human minds have semantic content (it would be incoherent to deny it, as the denial itself involves concepts), and because I know the definition of what a computer is, which is that it is a purely syntactic formalism. Anyone who knows the history of computer science will know that computation was intentionally defined as a purely syntactic process. And because it is syntactic, we can mechanize it using physical processes. And no amount of syntax ever amounts to semantics, just as so matter how many natural numbers you add, you'll never get a pineapple or even the number pi. How could it?

Whether this entails dualism or not depends on what you mean by "dualism". It does not entail Cartesian dualism, though a Cartesian dualist can accept this view as presented.

> seems to make a similar argument to this; i.e. that it's the humans who give meaning to things, "logical symbols on a piece of paper are just a bunch of meaningless ink marks"

We don't give meanings to things per se. The meaningless ink marks on a piece of paper mean just that: ink marks on a piece of paper. Those are still meanings. However, writing involves the instrumentalization of physical things to make conventional signs, and signs are things that stand in for something else. So, yes, we can make ink marks with which we associate certain meanings and agree to a convention so that we can communicate.

> FWIW I don't think that the "triangularity" in my head is the true mathematical concept of "triangularity".

What is the "true mathematical concept"?

Concepts can be vague (though triangularity per se is so crisp and simple that I reject the idea that you don't have a clear idea of "triangularity" as such), and we usually do not explicitly grasp all that's entailed by them. For example, people knew what triangles were before they learned that the sum of their angles is always 180 degrees. The latter falls out of an analysis of the concept. And this law applies to all triangles because it necessarily falls out of the concept of triangularity, not because we've empirically shown that all triangles seem to have this property, approximately.

> I don't see any difficulty with semantics being "a matter of image", really.

Your son, as he was learning, was abstracting from these individual examples. He realized that you don't mean this triangle, or that triangle, but something both have in common, and ultimately, that is triangularity, which is not just a property or feature of a given triangle, like "green" as in "green triangle", but the what of a triangle. But if you reduce concepts to images, you end up with problems and paradoxes. For example, why should a collection of these things, to the exclusion of those things, be triangles? Or the number three: you have never encountered the number three. Or the notion of similarity between images. There are well known issues with an imagist notion of the mind.
by mono2025 | 2025-06-30 23:04:12+00:00
Ever found yourself toggling between tabs, notes, and tools when you should be focusing? Trivana is here to change that: • Stealth Mode to stay invisible during • Pinned to your screen for instant help. • Smart Screen Scanning (auto‐scan or select any region). recordings. • One‐click access to your personal notes. • Multilingual OCR (English, French, Spanish and German for now ).
by simonw | 2025-06-30 23:04:41+00:00
Almost. It's the current prompt plus the previous prompts and responses in the current conversation.

The idea behind "context engineering" is to help people understand that a prompt these days can be long, and can incorporate a whole bunch of useful things (examples, extra documentation, transcript summaries etc) to help get the desired response.

"Prompt engineering" was meant to mean this too, but the AI influencer crowd redefined it to mean "typing prompts into a chatbot".
by crazygringo | 2025-06-30 23:04:55+00:00
Because companies compete globally, not just locally?

Apple isn't building features to compete with Samsung only in the US. It's a global dynamic. Local competition is restricted to tiny subsets of features.

And it's only 57-42 for Apple in the US anyways. If it were 90-10 then sure. But 57-42 is what you get with strong competition. Having a majority doesn't mean there's a lack of competition. It just means one company is currently ahead, as one of them usually will be when there are two main players.
by daedrdev | 2025-06-30 23:05:54+00:00
California does make good rice. Japan is just hyper protectionist with extremely high import taxes on rice. They don't get imported because of this tax. The US produces both lower quality and high quality rice, as you might expect of an enormous country that exports half its rice. This is why prices remain high. Do you think someone who is poor would not buy cheaper rice that had 90% the quality if they could?

In fact the US produces plenty of Japanese rice (Japonica)