MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xelxebar | 2025-06-07 03:13:55+00:00
Oooo, such pretty solutions here. What do people think of this APL option?

(destEl-sourceEl)⌈destAz-sourceAz

Honestly, though, we don't really know what any of the reference implementations do. The core structure structure is just (max (f x y) (g z w)), and we have to simply guess at the meaning of f and g by their names. The above APL takes a similar liberty, but instead of a fiat declaring, we just a fiat declare that our data is sufficiently normalized.

Here's my take on performScan, too:

Log⍪←onSourceTime+slewTime
by brookst | 2025-06-07 03:14:30+00:00
Nobody cares about the costs to offer a product. People care about the value provided.

If I think a service is worth $20 month, that will not change if their cost structure changes and suddenly it costs them $1 or $100 per month to offer. It’s worth $20 to me either way. If their cost becomes $1, I rely on competition to create the consumer surplus.
by yawaramin | 2025-06-07 03:14:50+00:00
I feel like I should emphasize some of the text in my original question: 'Now suppose you need to allow the template user to pass in ANY attributes they want into the <div> tag, BUT you need to make sure that when it is finally rendered, one of its CSS classes MUST be `dropdown`.'

Fortunately, a Jinja guru in another channel showed me how to do it using a macro:

{% macro combo_box(class="") %} <combo-box class="{{ class }} dropdown" {{ kwargs | xmlattr | safe }}> {{- caller() if caller -}} </combo-box> {% endmacro %}

This pulls out the `class` attribute's value using the keyword argument and lets me render ALL the other passed-in attributes using the `kwargs` special variable. So, problem solved, with some abstraction, you're right.

BUT, for this `<combo-box>` custom element I also need to pass in multiple 'slots' ie children elements to inject inside various parts of the final rendered component. With HTML generation functions and values, this is relatively easy. With a template, it's possible but very unintuitive and ugly-looking, unfortunately!
by cperciva | 2025-06-07 03:15:25+00:00
Apple did very important work making LLVM happen, but that was a long time ago. At this point there are lots of companies involved in that project.

As far as "power" is concerned... speaking as release engineer, I don't give special treatment to anyone; nor have I even been asked to. If anyone has a special relationship it's Netflix but if anything that's the opposite way around: "Can you please throw 10% of all Internet traffic at this TCP stack patch and let us know if anything breaks" is a thing. They're incredibly helpful with Q/A.
by roenxi | 2025-06-07 03:15:34+00:00
> Take a closer look at that chart. Notice the pronounced downward trend on the blue line (federal) starting from a peak in 1992...

So? That is noise on a flat line. A drawdown doesn't mean sticking to the consensus flat trend. The plan here seems to be a "drawdown" is something where I can say "spending will be about the same".

If I talk about increasing government spending I can point to spending growing from 3% -> 20% GDP with a really clear trend and level change. When we talk about drawdowns it is supposed to mean maintaining a trend at 20%? That isn't a drawdown. If that is a drawdowne then DOGE may turn out to have successfully drawn down US government spending! Even though spending seems to be going up.
by brigandish | 2025-06-07 03:18:08+00:00
On the contrary, for the overwhelming majority of children you're absolutely right, they didn't have serious risk from COVID-19, which makes your question a good one, not a rhetorical one.

Regardless, herd immunity was not a serious possibility at any point (given the high Rº and lack of a vaccine that could prevent transmission), which, considering this was known very early on makes your question, again, a good one not a rhetorical one, despite your intent.

Finally, regardless of herd immunity, at risk individuals would still require vaccination, which makes the herd immunity as a goal, again, irrelevant, which is where I started. It's a nice by-product.
by hollerith | 2025-06-07 03:19:46+00:00
My reaction to learning about this is that it is good news: this explains the weakening of demand for programmers, but unlike the AI explanation, this explanation does not come with a large risk of the demand becoming much weaker than it is now.

Also, finally programmers with the right to live and work in the US catch a break: salaries for US-based programmers can be amortized over only 5 years as opposed to the 15 years of non-US programmers.
by onecommentman | 2025-06-07 03:20:03+00:00
One major failure event of this type that had nationwide repercussions was the “St. Valentines Day massacre” of 1990 that brought down the entire AT&T POTS long distance telephone network for a day.

https://telephoneworld.org/landline-telephone-history/the-cr...

An amazing bug, when you consider it.
by Madmallard | 2025-06-07 03:22:10+00:00
I'm surprised posts like this aren't instantaneously flagged and removed. The tools for doing this are readily available for free as it is.

This is basically another "throw AI in it" CRUD app that wants your money. They're all really low effort grifts that do not deserve to see the light of day.

They work for a subset of animations that go in commonplace game types. Anything creative or new or different? No chance you'll get a satisfactory result. They are all subtly wrong in ways that anyone can easily spot and will likely get your game filtered out and harshly criticized publically on Steam or other platforms.

This right here too is so egregious: https://www.godmodeai.cloud/plans
by aidenn0 | 2025-06-07 03:22:16+00:00
> This almost doesn’t look like code to me. I would expect any programmer to be able to at least get some sense of what’s going on here, even without knowing Haskell. I don’t think I could say the same thing about this piece of Lisp:

I only understand the Haskell code as well as I do because the comment describes what it does (much more clearly than the docstring on the lisp function). Others have already posted about how unnecessarily verbose the lisp function is, so I won't rehash that part here.
by 6LLvveMx2koXfwn | 2025-06-07 03:22:18+00:00
They weren't, if you look at the fix [1] the dedupe loop was run in all cases, not just those with known dupes, so the performance hit was any bundle with lots of refs.

1.https://github.com/git/git/commit/bb74c0abbc31da35be52999569...
by bcrl | 2025-06-07 03:23:52+00:00
I was just helping out with the network at an event. Worked great in testing, but it failed in production due to unicast flooding the network core. Turns out that some of the PoE Ethernet switches had an insufficiently sized CAM for the deployment combined with STP topology changes reducing the effective size of the CAM by a factor of 10 on the larger switches. Gotta love when packet forwarding goes from O(1) to O(n) and O(n^2)! Debugging that in production is non-trivial as the needle is in such a large haystack of packets so as to be nearly impossible to find in the output of tcpdump and wireshark. The horror... The horror...
by todotask2 | 2025-06-07 03:24:00+00:00
For a 5-minute WordPress installation, you still need shared hosting and a domain name. Not every non-technical person knows how to handle the basic setup — including domain registration or choosing an affordable hosting provider. After that, it only takes one minute with a one-click installer.

Next, optimising themes and hardening security add another layer of complexity, let alone learning Full-site editing.

There are many questions posted daily on r/Wordpress ("p" in lower case because they can't fix it on Reddit) — some users are able to fix the issues themselves, while others seek help. So WordPress has never been easier than using a modern static site generator (SSG).

The terminal isn't that hard — what's harder is that there’s more than one way to run it.
by sixdimensional | 2025-06-07 03:24:09+00:00
Here's a fun true story..

Aircraft do not have a singular unique identifier that is time invariant.

While it is true that aircraft have serial numbers issued to their airframe, by itself, aircraft serial numbers are not unique.

The only unique identifier for an aircraft across its lifecycle from production to end of life is a combination of the manufacturer, make and serial number.

I know this because I am on (for better or worse) the patent that involves defining that as a unique identifier for aircraft.

The combination of ICAO aircraft type designator + serial number approximately is the most permanent identifier for an airframe - and even then - if an airframe is modified significantly enough that it no longer is the previous type - even then this identifier can change.

Personally, it boggled my mind that something as big as an aircraft did not have a simple time invariant unique identifier.

P.S. For those who might ask - aircraft registration numbers are like license plates, so they change - tail numbers can be ambiguous and misinterpreted depending on what is painted on the aircraft where, and ICAO 24-bit aircraft addresses are tied to ADS-B transponder boxes, which technically can be moved and reprogrammed between aircraft also.
by fastball | 2025-06-07 03:24:57+00:00
The idea as stated is a poor one, but a slight reshuffling and it seems promising:

You generate code with LLMs. You write tests for this code, either using LLMs or on your own. You of course commit your actual code: it is required to actually run the program, after all. However you also save the entire prompt chain somewhere. Then (as stated in the article), when a much better model comes along, you re-run that chain, presumably with prompting like "create this project, focusing on efficiency" or "create this project in Rust" or "create this project, focusing on readability of the code". Then you run the tests against the new codebase and if the suite passes you carry on, with a much improved codebase. The theoretical benefit of this over just giving your previously generated code to the LLM and saying "improve the readability" is that the newer (better) LLM is not burdened by the context of the "worse" decisions made by the previous LLM.

Obviously it's not actually that simple, as tests don't catch everything (tho with fuzz testing and complete coverage and such they can catch most issues), but we programmers often treat them as if they do, so it might still be a worthwhile endeavor.
by hansvm | 2025-06-07 03:25:53+00:00
Pick any compiled language and test it. Pick an algorithm making heavy use of a small (<10, maybe up to a hundred elements) hashset, and try using a linear structure instead. The difference will be most apparent with complicated keys, but even strings of more than a few characters should work.

Some example workloads include:

1. Tokenization (checking if a word is a keyword)

2. Interpretation (mapping an instruction name to its action)

3. ML (encoding low-cardinality string features in something like catboost)

4. JSON parsers (usually key count is low, so parse into a linear-scan hashmap rather than a general-purpose hashmap)

Details vary in the exact workload, the hardware you're using, what other instructions you're mixing in, etc. It's a well-known phenomenon though, and when you're doing a microoptimization pass it's definitely something to consider. 2x speedups are common. 10x or more happen from time to time.

It's similar to (but not _quite_ the same as) the reason real-world binary search uses linear scans for small element counts.

When you go to really optimize the system, you'll also find that the linear scan solution is often more amenable to performance improvements from batching.

As to how much it matters for your composite program? Even at a microoptimization level I think it's much more important to pay attention to memory access patterns. When we wrote our protobuf parser that's all we really had to care about to improve performance (33% less execution time for the entire workload, proto parsing being much better than that). You're much more likely to be able to write sane code that way (contrasted with focusing on instructions and whatnot first), and it's easier to layer CPU improvements on top of a good memory access pattern than to go the other way around.
by dmurray | 2025-06-07 03:26:41+00:00
People might say the economy is more important to their voting, but it's not as prominent in the public discourse (which happens not only on the floor of Congress, speeches, and the occasional debate but in newspapers and on TV and social media).

As an outsider who took a passing interest in the last presidential election, I couldn't meaningfully distinguish the candidates' economic policies (I think they both promised to cut taxes and increase government spending, while reducing inflation and the cost of living for ordinary Americans). But I could have told you where they stood on all the culture war talking points.

In hindsight, you could perhaps point to things Trump said as an intention to start a trade war with all major trading partners - the defining economic policy of his term so far. But at the time, 150% tariffs on China weren't seen as any more likely than a huge wall that Mexico will pay for.
by travisjungroth | 2025-06-07 03:26:58+00:00
Thousands as in 2,000+ years? From my understanding that’s rare, at least by geography. I could be wrong.

But it’s not like we’re being super precise here. It’s fuzzy enough that lots of takes are correct, depending how you frame it. That’s kind of my point in my other reply. They weren’t wrong but they were being rude about it.
by glompers | 2025-06-07 03:27:28+00:00
This civic control correlation can simply have more to do with the most-white-supremacist Democrats switching to the GOP en masse and also simultaneously leaving multiethnic cities and school districts en masse after the 1960s. That self-selection left Republicans not a competitive amount of credibility or voter pool behind to work with. Your implication that policy dysfunction has ensued on that account rather than because of fiscal drain -- that's a separate topic. Individual states and individual cities have too many fiscal policy similarities and differences, overlapping, to responsibly compare in any online discussion.
by fpgaminer | 2025-06-07 03:27:37+00:00
I used almost 100% AI to build a SCUMM-like parser, interpreter, and engine (https://github.com/fpgaminer/scumm-rust). It was a fun workflow; I could generally focus on my usual work and just pop in occasionally to check on and direct the AI.

I used a combination of OpenAI's online Codex, and Claude Sonnet 4 in VSCode agent mode. It was nice that Codex was more automated and had an environment it could work in, but its thought-logs are terrible. Iteration was also slow because it takes awhile for it to spin the environment up. And while you _can_ have multiple requests running at once, it usually doesn't make sense for a single, somewhat small project.

Sonnet 4's thoughts were much more coherent, and it was fun to watch it work and figure out problems. But there's something broken in VSCode right now that makes its ability to read console output inconsistent, which made things difficult.

The biggest issue I ran into is that both are set up to seek out and read only small parts of the code. While they're generally good at getting enough context, it does cause some degradation in quality. A frequent issue was replication of CSS styling between the Rust side of things (which creates all of the HTML elements) and the style.css side of things. Like it would be working on the Rust code and forget to check style.css, so it would just manually insert styles on the Rust side even though those elements were already styled on the style.css side.

Codex is also _terrible_ at formatting and will frequently muck things up, so it's mandatory to use it with an autoformatter and instructions to use it. Even with that, Codex will often say that it ran it, but didn't actually run it (or ran it somewhere in the middle instead of at the end) so its pull requests fail CI. Sonnet never seemed to have this issue and just used the prevailing style it saw in the files.

Now, when I say "almost 100% AI", it's maybe 99% because I did have to step in and do some edits myself for things that both failed at. In particular neither can see the actual game running, so they'd make weird mistakes with the design. (Yes, Sonnet in VS Code can see attached images, and potentially can see the DOM of vscode's built in browser, but the vision of all SOTA models is ass so it's effectively useless). I also stepped in once to do one major refactor. The AIs had decided on a very strange, messy, and buggy interpreter implementation at first.
by RfMnvpF9 | 2025-06-07 03:28:56+00:00
O.o And why take it down?

Did they not "coerce" you to do that? Some disclaimers is needed - could you tell us that they did not led you to take it down?

earlier in the day I was in McD [market st sf] literally reading your blog post midway, refresh and the whole thing is gone darn! Did you got captured too?

I thought my browser had a bug but No the post is gone! So much for transparency, YC.. simply getting from bad to worse.

@OP you should have updated the blog post with a "2025 Update" textbox as per interwebs custom, instead of pulling the whole damn thing down. https://archive.is/cgKRF:

> don't censure bad [..] YC are the ones who teach how important is negative feedback for improvement

Seriously?

What about:

> pushing everyone through the same pipeline [....] everyone needs to follow their simple framework, not try to shine too much, not try to choose the right words, wash off all the makeup, put on a gray uniform

> this feeling in the air that they want to cram everyone into their framework, and any attempts to go beyond the framework are quickly suppressed

listen to your younger self. Is self censorship now the new normal?

I seriously wonder how many of such dissenting posts have already been clean-scrubbed off the internet

> internal forum called Bookface, but it serves more as an abstract omniscient brain

looks like its real usefulness is to "cover their own reputational risks", to track dissenters and mob against them. Beware!
by paulryanrogers | 2025-06-07 03:29:25+00:00
Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition. Other measures discourage voters likely to vote against them, like people who cannot easily take time off to vote in person or who have changed their name. Blocking rank choice and maintaining first past the post also disenfranchise third parties, and reinforces the power of incumbents.

Trump himself admitted it's better for Republicans when fewer people vote.
by mindslight | 2025-06-07 03:30:29+00:00
I like where this article is coming from - if they're really fighting, push them to fight hard. The sooner we can get the wannabe oligarchs themselves on the bonfire of fascism, the sooner the movement will destroy itself, and the more of our actual country might remain intact.

It would suck having the main private space company be essentially destroyed, but that destruction is essentially similar to what happened when the Tesla became the Swasticar - social media delusion spirals have consequences. Also given the absolutely braindamaged political movements masses of people are falling for, it's not even clear we're ready to expand our civilization into space.
by rogerrogerr | 2025-06-07 03:30:41+00:00
This isn’t the gotcha you want it to be - SpaceX isn’t valuable because it has the contracts, it’s valuable because it’s the only US player that _can_ service the contracts.

That demand isn’t going away just because the Feds dislike Musk for a while. All the same stuff has to go in all the same orbits, and ultimately SX is the only company that can do it at a reasonable cost.
by 1659447091 | 2025-06-07 03:31:43+00:00
> so in other words "high genetic variance" doesn't really mean much

>> Although this makes you wonder- if they're the most genetically diverse, do they also look diverse? Are there light and dark skinned individuals, blonde and red and black hair, green/ blue/ brown eyes, short and tall, etc.?

Yes, they do look diverse.

The visual differences will be more readily apparent to people who are familiar with the high genetic variance population since this would allow more (maybe fine-grained) diverse looks. If the person looking does not have much experience distinguishing looks in a "high genetic variance" population then they probably end up generalizing as a default. Not being able to pick up on how diverse these looks are does not make them not there. Only that, the observer is familiar with the visual differences in their non-african population of less genetically diverse humans with some grouped environmental adaptions/mutations. Such as lighter pigment to better absorb vitamin D, and this type of thing being carried as the standard for "diverse looking" (blue/brown/light/dark).

After all, "SLC24A5 encodes a cation exchanger in melanosomes ... A derived, nonsynonymous mutation (rs1426654 ...) in SLC24A5 associated with light skin color has swept to near fixation in Europeans due to positive selection [...] rs1426654 is common in East African populations with high levels of Afroasiatic ancestry [...] Further, SLC24A5 likely experienced positive selection in East Africa after this admixture event. ... rs1426654 is at moderate frequency (5–12%) in the KhoeSan from Botswana, who have substantially lighter skin than equatorial Africans". and also "studies show that the ancestral alleles of many predicted functional pigmentation variants in Africa are associated with lighter skin, suggesting our human ancestors may have had light or moderately pigmented skin" and that dark skin may be a derived trait that also continued to evolve.[0]

But when you only have a hammer...

It's like being introduced to this workshop full of tools with a stacks of wood for any type of joinery desired. Yet, your experience is much more simplistic: hammer, nail (or bolt/screw, whatever), boards; repeat. Without much thought, the human brain has already created the groups: the trusty hammer with some metal fasteners to drive, and that foreign group of absolutely nothing like the trusty hammer and fasteners. But upon closer look there are hammers and nails and screws and all these other metal fasteners in the workshop -- except, instead of them being chosen to put the boards together, a variation of tools are creating a variation of joints in order to put the boards together. The finished product ends up being ~99.9% identical to your nailed product, but it's probably only those familiar with the experience of joinery that are most likely to appreciate an notice the visual diversity between joints, instead of simply noticing that one of the products has a couple spots of metal and the other doesn't.

[0] https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/30/R1/R88/6089124
by jcarrillo | 2025-06-07 03:31:59+00:00
Location: San Diego, CA

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Typescript, Node.js, React, GCP/AWS, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Docker, Firebase

Résumé/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NHKPxcB73xFLRJ06Vf6Ju7ut...

Email: carrillo.jason.e@gmail.com

4+ YOE owning full-stack web apps with measurable business impact:

--> Delivered a full-stack A/B Test platform that drove ad revenue by 20%.

--> Reduced a business' client processing time by 80%.

--> Cut a sales process from days to seconds.

--> Reduced image delivery times by 90% for 25k+ daily active users.

--> Reduced average incident resolution time by 50%.

Looking for full-time, full-stack or backend-focused roles.
by jonhohle | 2025-06-07 03:32:12+00:00
I may be wrong about OPs intention, but AFAICT, because no encoding is specified, the client gets to choose. For someone not using a default encoding that's a superset of ASCII (like ISO-2022-KR) the page appears as a �.

Current practice is to put a meta tag with your encoding, use a Unicode BOM, or less favorably, send the charset attribute in the Content-type header.