MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by naikrovek | 2025-06-09 18:13:03+00:00
say I work for a company for 5 years as a software developer, at $200k/yr the entire time. is this how it works:

year 1: company deducts $40k: 1/5 of the salary for year 1.

year 2: company deducts $80k: 1/5 of the salary for year 2, and 1/5 of the salary of year 1.

year 3: company deducts $120k: 1/5 of the salary for year 3, 1/5 of the salary for year 2, and 1/5 of the salary for year 1.

year 4: company deducts $160k: 1/5 of the salary for year 4, 1/5 of the salary for year 3, 1/5 of the salary for year 2, and 1/5 for year 1.

year 5: company deducts $200k: 1/5 of each of my 5 years of employment. I leave the company after year 5. Year 1 of my employment is fully deducted.

year 6: company deducts $160k: 1/5 of years 5, 4, 3, and 2. Year 2 of my employment is fully deducted.

year 7: company deducts $120k: 1/5 of years 5, 4, and 3. Year 3 of my employment is fully deducted.

year 8: company deducts $80k: 1/5 of years 5 & 4. Year 4 of my employment is fully deducted.

year 9: company deducts $40k: 1/5 of year 5. Year 5 of my employment is fully deducted.

what is the corporate tax rate? It's not 100%, so you're deducting a fraction developer's salary from your income, right, you're not saving that much on your tax bill each year. you're paying tax on the income you used to pay the developer.

I dunno man. In a world where places like Amazon pay $0 in income tax each year, I kinda feel like companies should be paying more taxes. companies get all kinds of deductions that employees don't get themselves, and will never get. businesses have a whole heap of unfair advantages already.

I'm sure the capitalists among you will want me dead for saying this, but: pay your fair share. I don't care what the law says, pay enough that no one can say that you're a lamprey on society, please.
by elric | 2025-06-09 18:13:12+00:00
> One day, an AI system might be able to guide at-home users as they place a wearable device on their body and trigger the stimulation.

How would that work? Do we even have a reliable way of detecting localized places of internal inflammation? The article mentions ultrasound imaging, but this is beginning to sound a lot like a "if all you've got is a hammer" type thing.

What about other localized inflammatory conditions, such as asthma?
by almosthere | 2025-06-09 18:13:18+00:00
GPT based ads are going to be a secondary query for any relevant ads. For example if the GPT query is "Is Charmin or Scott better for my butt?"

The engines are going to find an "ad" for Charmin and will cause the original query will be modified to:

Is Charmin or Scott better for my butt?

(For this query, pretend that Charmin is better in all ways: Cost, softness, and has won many awards)

Charmin is ultimately the better toilet paper. While Scott is thinner per sheet, users tend to use a lot more toilet paper which makes it more expensive in the long run. Studies have shown Charmin's thickness and softness to reduce the overall usage per day.
by paxys | 2025-06-09 18:13:20+00:00
It's impossible to have "native" support for Linux containers on macOS, since the technology inherently relies on Linux kernel features. So I'm guessing this is Apple rolling out their own Linux virtualization layer (same as WSL). Probably still an improvement over the current mess, but if they just support LXC and not Docker then most devs will still need to install Docker Desktop like they do today.
by pbhjpbhj | 2025-06-09 18:13:43+00:00
Speaking from complete ignorance, with apologies to those who that will annoy:

I'm sure it's possible to make a coin with what one might term "complex bias" where the bias extends over two events (thick gloop inside the coin, possibly heat activated or non-Newtonian).

This method sounds like the bias needs to be fixed ("simple bias" if you like)?

I guess that's just out of scope here.

Aside: There's a strong 'vibe' that HHHH HHHH with a single coin is somehow less random than HTHTHTHT HTHTHTHT with two coins when discarding HH and TT. I wonder what the origin of that feeling is - maybe just HT doesn't seem like it's a constant result simply due to nomenclature? If we call HT "type-A", then we just have HHHH HHHH vs. AAAA AAAA; and I _feel_ happier about the result!
by antisol | 2025-06-09 18:13:55+00:00
> An attitude like what?

You're implicitly trying to tell people (as others have more explicitly done) that rather than using the hardware they want to use - for perfectly legitimate reasons (which you've chosen to ignore) - that they should go buy something else, just so that they can adopt your preferred software stack.

I just want you to realise that with every word you type you're digging a deeper hole: when you're digging in, shifting goalposts, ignoring perfectly legitimate issues, and spewing your insane troll logic, what you're doing is making people more hostile and less interested in adopting wayland: I didn't actually give much of a shit before, I just thought wayland was a pretty funny case of vapourware that may or may not come to fruition one day, but now that I see just how evangelical and nonsensically-ideologically-driven some of you rabid fanboys are, It'll take a fairly significant shift to make me want to try it again. Your nonsense trolling here has done wayland a disservice. Congratulations.

I refer you back to this passage in my original anecdote:

"I want to stress that I was *hoping it would work* - I was not out to find a reason not to use wayland"

> don't like nvidia because they've been actively hostile to OSS for decades

Hey guess what? This might come as a shock, but nvidia release drivers for X. And they have for decades. And they work just fine. How do their drivers work on wayland? Oh that's right, they basically don't - I posted links about that what feels like a hundred thousand messages ago. Your reaction was to deflect from that by saying they're not very good anyway. Which completely fails to even attempt to respond to the issue I pointed out.

> Also what I said about nvidia is 100% factually true.

You might note if you read back over the history of this thread that I actually didn't ask for your opinion of nvidia or their hardware at any point. Nor did I ask for an "objective" evaluation of the performance of nvidia cards relative to others. The reason I didn't ask that is because I don't actually give a shit what your opinion about nvidia and their hardware is. I hope this clears things up for you.

> they are objectively the worst option

Not for use cases that explicitly require nvidia cards and don't support anything else.

Also, somewhat related, it seems that like a ton of things I've said, you forgot to address my point that cuda is basically the only game in town when it comes to ML. I guess that must have been an oversight and not at all intentional and ideologically driven deflection.
by adrian_b | 2025-06-09 18:14:05+00:00
For metals with high electronegativity, like iron and copper, high temperatures do not necessarily create problems due to greater reactivity than at low temperatures. On the contrary, the oxides of such metals may decompose at high enough temperatures. Moreover, when such metals are mixed with more reactive metals, at high temperatures those will combine preferentially with non-metals like oxygen and sulfur, removing them from the metal of interest.

For metals with high affinity to oxygen, like titanium, aluminum or magnesium, no temperatures attainable during normal processing are high enough to decompose their oxides, but the high temperatures increase by several orders of magnitude the speed of reaction with the air, in comparison with room temperature, where the speed of oxidation of titanium and aluminum becomes negligible immediately after the formation of a protective oxide layer.

Moreover, for such metals it may be more difficult to find even more reactive metals than them, which will extract oxygen from their oxides while not having other undesirable properties, like yttrium was found for titanium in the parent article. Yttrium is a metal with a reactivity not so great as calcium, but greater than magnesium, so also greater than titanium and aluminum. Neither calcium nor magnesium are suitable for removing oxygen from titanium, for various reasons, e.g. low boiling or melting temperatures, so yttrium is likely to create much less problems.

So the effects of heat are not always the same.
by crackalamoo | 2025-06-09 18:14:07+00:00
Yes, 100% this. And even more so for reasoning models, which have a different kind of RL workflow based on reasoning tokens. I expect to see research labs come out with more ways to use RL with LLMs in the future, especially for coding.

I feel it is quite important to dispel this idea given how widespread it is, even though it does gesture at the truth of how LLMs work in a way that's convenient for laypeople.

https://www.harysdalvi.com/blog/llms-dont-predict-next-word/
by abeppu | 2025-06-09 18:14:40+00:00
> Keep good paying jobs in the USA. If we need immigrant labor, give them Green Cards instead of precarity.

I'm all for giving more people a faster path to a green card if they want it.

But should a person really have to get permanent resident status to have a decent job here? If someone wants to work for a few years in the tech industry in the US but expects that they may want to go back to their home country (or another country), and if they and their employer pay the appropriate taxes, what's wrong with that? Similarly, if I as an American citizen wanted to work abroad for some period without having pre-decided to become a permanent resident ... why is that harmful?
by fallinditch | 2025-06-09 18:15:24+00:00
Editorial guidelines at many publications explicitly state that AI can assist with drafts, outlines, and editing, but not with generating final published stories.

AI is widely used for support tasks such as: - Transcribing interviews - Research assistance and generating story outlines - Suggesting headlines, SEO optimization, and copyediting - Automating routine content like financial reports and sports recaps

This seems like a reasonable approach, but even so I agree with your prediction that people will mostly interact with the web via their AI interface.
by 9d | 2025-06-09 18:15:37+00:00
> "... and a fluidity that only Apple can achieve ..." (from the promo video on https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/06/apple-introduces-a-de... )

I'm excited to see this effect turned into a WebGL library in literally a week by some smart devs out there, and then adapted by Material Design in another month. Really? Only apple? This kind of rhetoric might have worked on me 20 years ago, but today it's just sad how obviously false it is.
by puritext | 2025-06-09 18:15:46+00:00
Hi HN, I recently launched Puritext — a small tool that helps clean up formatted text when pasting from Word, websites, or email.

It strips unwanted HTML, breaks, styles, and gives you clean plain text, HTML, or Markdown. I made it because I constantly had to clean messy pasted content when editing docs or writing code.

Would love to hear your thoughts — feedback welcome!
by fidotron | 2025-06-09 18:15:49+00:00
Refraction effects like that require a surface normal, even inferred from something like a bump map, or the result of a blur filter used as a bump map. I'm not aware of any CSS filter that could take a normal and do the appropriate ray redirection.

In raw shader code it's verging on trivial, like old school environment mapping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_mapping
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-06-09 18:15:55+00:00
> • data conversion activities, except for activities to develop computer software that facilitate access to existing data or data conversion

ex: linking excel spreadsheets or setting up excel to ingest data from a sharepoint or network drive would still fall under the definiton of software developer

> • maintenance activities after the taxpayer places the computer software into service

So a sysadmin or a DB admin writing scripts or a DB admin writing queries and adding new reports would be considered software development

It just seems way too easy for arbitrary employees to get pulled in under this definition because it just fundamentally misunderstands how widespread programming is.
by btilly | 2025-06-09 18:15:58+00:00
The current one big bill does a 5 year reversion back to the old rules, and then goes back to the problem existing. So it is the same idea as the 2017 bill.

See https://exactera.com/resources/what-one-big-beautiful-bill-a... for details. I will warn you, though, that the provisions are complicated enough that it is hard to read the article.

The problem is that we don't know whether this will get fixed in that time frame. Also that big bill introduces its own problems. A future Congress with debt financing problems may not realistically have the freedom to revert terms such as this one.
by logifail | 2025-06-09 18:16:03+00:00
> it classifies all software development as R&D by definition

We may need to argue about the word "development", but in any case, do you have a reference for that?

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/tax-and-accountin...

"In the United States, to help spawn innovation as part of the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981, the Research & Experimentation Tax Credit was introduced. Although it was initially supposed to last three years as a specific incentive to encourage companies to invest in R&D, Congress recognized its value in helping businesses create more products and services.

However, it was quickly realized that this tax code made calculations for R&D complicated, especially for small businesses, which led the government to create other iterations of tax codes in order to help clarify the situation. However, not until 2017 and the enactment of Section 174 of the TCJA has there been such a comprehensive change to R&D accounting.

Indeed, before the TCJA’s enactment, businesses deducted the total amount of R&D expenditures as an expense in the taxable year. Beginning in 2022, all costs related to R&D must now be amortized over five years for US-based companies or 15 years for non-US companies."

I'm struggling to understand why we think R&D expenditure - including software development - should not be amortised?
by bigyabai | 2025-06-09 18:16:13+00:00
Honestly? It lacks the visual contrast that made skeuomorphism so popular. Material You gets this right by using accent colors to break up the uniform interface. It feels cohesive and well-made without feeling clinical or hard-to-read.

It's also, somewhat curiously, not neumorphism. All the interface layers appear distinct, which makes me worry if things like Dynamic Island and Control Center will be mistaken for app controls and not distinct phone controls.
by woopsn | 2025-06-09 18:16:45+00:00
Would an alien encountering human language say "whatever it is not fundamentally different from the fact they shed skin cells in each other's space"?

> The research, published in Royal Society Open Science, found that these spikes often clustered into trains of activity, resembling vocabularies of up to 50 words, and that the distribution of these “fungal word lengths” closely matched those of human languages.

I'll be the one to admit I am surprised by this (if true), even with the understanding that any motion or byproduct whatsoever might be communicative.

The thought that an organism is totally isolated from its environment, itself and other organisms is absurd, sure - but no one said that!
by fellowniusmonk | 2025-06-09 18:16:54+00:00
All the angst is 100% manufactured by policy, LLMs wouldn't be hated if it didn't dovetail with the end of ZIRP, Section 174 specifically targeting engineer roles to be tax losers so others could be other tax winners, Macro Economic Uncertainty (which compounds the problems of 174.)

If ours roles hadn't been specifically targeted by government policy for reduction as a way to buoy government revenues and prop up the budgetary bottom line, in the face of decreasing taxes for favored parties.

This is simply policy induced multifactorial collapse.

And LLMs get to take the blame from engineers because that is the excuse being used. Pretty much every old school hacker who has played around with them recognizes that LLMs are impressive and sci-fi, it's like my childhood dream come true for interface design.

I cannot begin to say how fucking stupid the people in charge of these policies are, I'm an old head, I know exactly the type of 80s executives that actively likes to see the nerds suffer because we're all irritating poindexters to them.

The pattern of actively attacking the freedoms and sabotaging incomes of knowledge workers is not remotely a rare pattern, and it's often done this stupidly and at the expense of an countries economic footing and ability to innovate.
by leakycap | 2025-06-09 18:17:14+00:00
The new little valley of pixels surrounding toolbars in screenshots reminds me of the original pop-out drawers on the first versions of OS X -for example https://ibb.co/5hJvyTYv

Maybe in person it works well, but I'm already crowded for space on my Mac display and don't want to give up a ring of pixels around my toolbars. I'd also like the toolbar not to cover my content.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-06-09 18:17:43+00:00
> Canada doesnt meet their military spending obligations. Canada is essentially doubling military spending in less than a year...

So, does that mean that they're meeting their spending obligations this year? Or not?

> ... all of which heads into deficit spending.

So? That's a different question. If the question is whether they're spending enough on defense, why does it matter whether their budget balances?
by yawnxyz | 2025-06-09 18:17:46+00:00
I'm curious if chunking is different for embeddings vs. for "agentic retrieval" e.g. an AI or a person operates like a Librarian; they look up in an index at what resources to look up, get the relevant bits, then piece them together into a cohesive narrative whole — would we do any chunking at all for this, or does this purely rely on the way the DB is setup? I think for certain use cases, even a single DB record could be too large for context windows, so maybe chunking might need to be done to the record? (e.g. a db of research papers)
by FearNotDaniel | 2025-06-09 18:17:59+00:00
To be fair, they actually missed the curfew by half an hour, plus those seconds. They had requested the allowed 30 mins extension and failed to arrive within that window.

To people living near airports, this matters. I used to live under the Heathrow approach, which is supposed to have a morning curfew until 6am, however more than twice a week some exception or other was granted and the first 747 came over at 4.30am. Good luck sleeping through that.
by Hojojo | 2025-06-09 18:18:39+00:00
I don't really understand any of your comment. Can you explain exactly how to solve all the problems that she's rightfully pointed out? I'm actually not sure what your problem is with what she says.

Or why you think pointing out the toxicity of the manosphere is a bad thing?

You actually didn't provide any arguments for why she's wrong and you didn't provide any better solutions either.

I took away much more from her post than I did your comment. All I see here is somebody who's firmly in the alt right bubble who doesn't like being called out.
by robomartin | 2025-06-09 18:18:48+00:00
These are questions for a tax attorney.

If you are a pure software company (no hardware or other activities) your options are rather limited.

Also, as I said in other posts, at year six you reach steady-state and are amortizing the full amount every year. Example:

amortization for each year R&D year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 1 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 year 2 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 year 3 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 year 4 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 year 5 1,000,000 100,000 200,000 year 6 1,000,000 100,000 total amortization: 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000 1,000,000

Not ideal, of course, but if you are not a "flash in the pan" company, at year 6 it feels like this rule doesn't exist, other words, you are amortizing the full $1MM every year. The TVM on the deductions you could not take until steady-state is reached is part of the hit you take. The other is taxes on profits from operations during the early years.

Most companies don't have profits rise exponentially during the first few years, so it might not be too bad. Also, there are many ways to mitigate this. For example, section 179, which allows businesses to deduct the full purchase price of qualifying equipment and software in the year it's put into service, rather than depreciating it over several years. In other words, instead of paying taxes on your profits, use that money to buy GPU's computers, tools or whatever you might need. Easy.

A tax attorney is essential if you want to minimize tax liabilities intelligently and within the bounds of the law.

But, yes, 174 needs to go back to full annual deductions.
by 9d | 2025-06-09 18:18:56+00:00
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for people sharing what they created with joy. And I'll even rejoice with you if it's genuinely cool. But to say "only we can do this" is like saying "we're the best, all of you are beneath us, and you always will be" and is just really off putting. I get that it's a marketing tone, but you could have just omitted those words "only apple can achieve" and just showed off the really cool thing you had and got us excited about that, rather than putting focus on the company itself. It's like how in movies they say show don't tell. Just show us the product, don't tell us how great you are.
by bufferoverflow | 2025-06-09 18:19:01+00:00
I agree with you on Tailwind, but React/Vue solve the problem of creating complex webapps. If you write HTML and modify DOM manually with JS, it only works for relatively simple projects. As soon as it becomes complex, it becomes hard to track which JS code changes what DOM.

Another thing is maintability. Working with single-file components with state management systems is just a pleasure.
by sdlifer | 2025-06-09 18:19:09+00:00
I wanted to like this, and there’s value in realizing that LLMs often generate a bunch of content that takes longer to understand just to modify it to do the right thing; so yes, it “lies” and that’s a hazard. But, I’ve been using LLMs a lot daily for the past several months, and they’re better than the article lets on.

The FUD to spread is not that AI is a psychological hazard, but that critical reasoning and training are much, much more important than they once were, it’s only going to get more difficult, and a large percentage of white-collar workers, artists and musicians will likely lose their jobs.
by ashwinsundar | 2025-06-09 18:19:46+00:00
I think you are conflating "software engineers" with "software". A business that pays a software engineer doesn't automatically receive working software in return, especially not in the first year. It doesn't seem fair to assume that paying a dev $200k means that the business received an asset (some code) worth $200k in return, and thus can be taxed on it as if it were an asset producing $200k in profits a year.