MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mcdeltat | 2025-06-07 04:22:20+00:00
I don't disagree with you at all. My point was more like what another commenter said, that software adheres to a strict and very finite set of rules, the real world is way more complicated than that. It's so trivially easy to find real world counterexamples to just about any software that it's a barely interesting exercise (IMO). So you define a reasonable subset and work with that. And the reasonable subset is probably defined by positive/negative outcomes.

It would have been cool if the blog post discussed those outcomes so we can reason about it properly, otherwise it's just a list of claims at face value. If the programmer making an assumption means a screen at a gate says the wrong boarding time when there's a human there controlling the boarding, then not the end of the world. But if the programmer making an assumption causes 1/10000 flights to crash, then that's interesting and worthwhile calling out. It's just endless speculation without a proper outcome to tie it down.
by ednite | 2025-06-07 04:24:31+00:00
I’m working on two SaaS projects that both tackle constraints in totally separate industries. Luckily, their underlying structure is similar enough that I’ve been able to split my time and make progress on both in parallel. I can’t really dive into the specifics, just your typical web-based business apps with a few custom-built features designed to address specific workflow requirements. No AI features with these projects.

But surprisingly? What I’ve been most excited about lately is my blog.

And please don't read this as a shameless plug. I just like to encourage others to try if they are thinking about it. A space where I share thoughts about anything and everything. Surprisingly, it’s been a great mental reset and creative boost for my coding work during the day. It’s helped more than I expected.

Good luck to everyone with their projects.
by const_cast | 2025-06-07 04:25:23+00:00
Right, me too, which lead me to one conclusion: the root cause of obesity isn't overeating, it's a propensity to overeat. I don't have that propensity so I'm not obese, and probably won't be, unless that changes.

It's the same way I kind of view alcohol. Alcoholics are always alcoholics, even if they don't drink. Because drinking isn't alcoholism, having the desire to drink to the point of self-destruction is alcoholism.
by tptacek | 2025-06-07 04:25:25+00:00
Most of the code generated by LLMs, and especially the code you actually keep from an agent, is mid, replacement-level, boring stuff. If you're not already building projects with LLMs, I think you need to start doing that first before you develop a strong take on this. From what I see in my own work, the code being generated is highly unlikely to be distinguishable. There is more of me and my prompts and decisions in the LLM code than there can possibly be defensible IPR from anybody else, unless the very notion of, like, wrapping a SQLite INSERT statement in Golang is defensible.

The best way I can explain the experience of working with an LLM agent right now is that it is like if every API in the world had a magic "examples" generator that always included whatever it was you were trying to do (so long as what you were trying to do was within the obvious remit of the library).
by kevingadd | 2025-06-07 04:26:43+00:00
I think it makes sense that GP is skeptical of this article considering it contains things like:

> this tool is improving itself, learning from every interaction

which seem to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern LLMs work: the 'improving' happens by humans training/refining existing models offline to create new models, and the 'learning' is just filling the context window with more stuff, not enhancement of the actual model or the model 'learning' - it will forget everything if you drop the context and as the context grows it can 'forget' things it previously 'learned'.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-07 04:27:30+00:00
The proof is in the pudding. Having a thousand automated AI robots to maintain your code may be no more useful than a thousand chimps and typewriters to help you write Shakespeare.

My experience "vibe coding" doesn't give me much hope either. ChatGPT and Claude will happily suggest 500-line disaster commits that break more things than they fix, no matter how smart they get. We should all know by now that we can't trust ChatGPT to review code, even if it's got a penchant for the occasional college try.

> in Factorio terms - we need quality modules.

In Mario terms, we need a Super Mushroom. I think this is a weak cop-out for the many failings of AI, and the more important question of how we actually make AI good at all this. There are currently dozens of AI inference products you can buy for development, and none of them are your silver bullet. You can optimize agents all the way down your conveyor belts, but none of it will replace the discretionary management of a human.

We ought to be careful advocating for these things with certainty. I worry that the many promises of AI will become the 21st century "flying car" in the same way that early 1950s experiences with commercial flight created unrealistic expectations of scale and problem-solving.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-06-07 04:28:05+00:00
The epiphany I had with haskell was understanding why it was so modular. It goes beyond just understanding haskell though and towards understanding the fundamental nature of modularity.

Think about it. What is the smallest most primitive computation that is modular?

If you have a method that mutates things, then that method is tied to the thing it mutates and everything else that mutates it. You can't move a setter away from the entity it mutates without moving the entity with it. It's not modular.

What about an IO function? Well for an IO function to work it must be tied to the IO. Is it a SQL database? A chat client? If you want to move the IO function you have to move the IO it is intrinsically tied with.

So what is the fundamental unit of computation? The pure function. A function that takes an input and returns an output deterministically. You can move that thing anywhere and it is also the smallest computation possible in a computer.

The reason why haskell is so modular is it forces you to segregate away IO and purity. The type system automatically forces you to make the code using the most modular primitives possible. It's almost like how rust forces you to code in a way that prevents certain errors.

Your code in haskell will be made entirely of "pure" functions with things touching IO being segregated away via the IO monad. There is no greater form of modularity and decoupling.

In fact any other computing primitive you use in your program will inevitably be LESS modular then a pure function. That's why when you're programming with OOP or imperative or any other style of programming you'll always hit more points where modularity is broken then you would say haskell. That is not to say perfect modularity is the end goal, but if it was the path there is functional programming.
Show HN: The 5-minutes Competitor Analysis
by rubeekrumpet | 2025-06-07 04:28:13+00:00
Y Competitor is a web-based tool that helps Digital Product Managers, UX Leads, CX Researches and Agencies teams run fast, actionable competitor teardowns. By entering a single URL, users receive a detailed analysis in PowerPoint covering UX design, trust signals, conversion clarity - automatically benchmarked against 30+ heuristics.

Want a teardown of your biggest competitor? Navigate to the website and do it using free 3 credits or drop a URL, I will do the first 5 replies for free and send you the teardown deck.

New features coming soon !
by gametorch | 2025-06-07 04:28:50+00:00
Hey thanks for the feedback! Your image link is giving me 404, fyi.

> I assume you are running some type of LLM to specially format the prompts to the image models, or is it more complex than that?

Yes, we pre-prompt by default, but you can manually disable this. If you disable it you also avoid paying the LLM input/output token tax.

Strangely enough, though, specifically formatting prompts and creating pre-prompts hasn't really had as large of an effect as I thought it would on the quality of the end result.

Despite how little of an effect pre-prompting has, I still think most of the value add right now comes from the business logic. It's about what you do before and after sending the prompt to get the best results. It'll also be about crafting the most frictionless UI for a human. For example, they need to be able to easily convey to the computer "this image and this other image are good in these specific ways, please combine them to make this third image."

The other long term business view here is these models are truly improving in quality exponentially and decreasing in cost exponentially. Read: they are commodities. This means you WILL get categorically replaced if you are in the business of having the best model (the most sentimentally valuable piece of gold! or corn bushel!). The real value add here, if there is any long term, has to be in the UI, organization, and distribution of the commodity. That's what I'm trying to build with GameTorch.
by const_cast | 2025-06-07 04:28:52+00:00
It is bullshit, but for most average people with average levels of exercise (or no exercise at all, sedentary lifestyle is pretty common) it's good enough to tell if something is wrong.

It's not A1C or something that's actively tracking your success and management in the long term, it's just the kind of thing where you look at it, look at the person, and say "is this a problem?" and usually it's clear.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-07 04:28:58+00:00
> The proof is[sic] in[sic] the pudding.

"The Fact-Checking of the Cheezburger Is In the Eeting of the Cheezburger" -- Ancho Pantsa

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/886386-the-proof-of-the-pud...
by Kamq | 2025-06-07 04:29:20+00:00
> Equal in voting rights. Gerrymandering has been perfected by Republicans. Through that they manage to dilute votes of the opposition.

This thread is talking about the Senate. The senate isn't gerrymandered. Both senators are state-wide races.

If you want to view it that way, you can view the senate as "pre-gerrymandered". But the last time that was an option was in 1959, and both of those are just "the entire area the US owned, but wasn't a state yet. To get senate gerrymandering, you have to go back to 1912 and the admission of New Mexico/Arizona.
by genocidicbunny | 2025-06-07 04:29:39+00:00
Well what I'm speaking to more is that most systems that you model, most of the model is already assumptions. So natural or not, that database schema is already invoking assumptions which may or may not be false. Especially when dealing with any system where humans are directly involved in it. For many things, there's no exhaustive list of rules that will cover all the cases. As they say, if you make something idiot-proof, they'll invent a better idiot.
by kiitos | 2025-06-07 04:31:57+00:00
I've read that paper for sure!

> Disks and flash devices exhibit a subtle and complex failure model: a few blocks of data could become inaccessible or be silently corrupted [8, 9, 32, 59]. Although such storage faults are rare compared to whole-machine failures, in large-scale distributed systems, even rare failures become prevalent [60, 62]. Thus, it is critical to reliably detect and recover from storage faults.

It's not true in general that a node in a distributed system binds its persisted state to a local disk, or flash device, or any specific implementation of any specific kind of storage system. The storage layer is the responsibility of the node to manage, and irrelevant to the wider distributed system in which the node is a participant. Any of those kinds of storage faults need to be accommodated by the node that utilizes those storage layers, but their specific details don't need to be communicated beyond the specific node where they apply. And it's not at all critical for those nodes to detect and recover from any faults in their storage layer; those faults can easily be communicated to the broader distributed system, which necessarily must be able to handle node-specific failures like those without breaking everything down!

> how to think about local recovery actions in the context of the global consensus protocol!

Local recovery actions, or any other kinds of node-specific details, have no relevance or influence on the information communicated thru the the global consensus protocol. A node can persist its state to a local disk, or to RAM, or to an S3 object, or anything else, and none of these details matter at all to the details that node communicates to other nodes in its cluster.

tl;dr: nodes don't necessarily persist state to local disk
by const_cast | 2025-06-07 04:32:01+00:00
Some* experts, and frankly I really doubt their perspective because it's all a risk management thing.

It's not that statins are good for you, it's that heart disease is the number 1 killer in the US and surgery is very risky. If we're able to better control cholesterol and hypertension without invasive methods that's very good.

Also GLP-1s lower cholesterol too. So it's possibly statins will be going out a bit out of fashion in the future.
by kevingadd | 2025-06-07 04:32:24+00:00
You're going to have a much harder time getting good animations generated for something that isn't a humanoid, since the training sets won't have much to work from. It's possible with a really good prompt for 'slime' you could get something but this doesn't seem to allow prompt customization.

If you're after monsters like slimes I would not drop money on this.
by inejge | 2025-06-07 04:33:48+00:00
> I'd be interested to see what the effects are of these assumptions failing

Mostly confusion, but the combination of aviation and confusion can be dangerous and even deadly. Not directly related to this list, but I'm reminded of [1]: no one entity has set out to inconvenience the hapless traveler, but the combination of history and practice are a constant source of irritation, and at the times of heightened tensions and security might even lead to scary incidents. All because of the name.

[1] https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/149323/my-name-ca...
by wat10000 | 2025-06-07 04:35:24+00:00
Mild spoilers here, I suppose!

It didn’t make sense that San Antonio would be targeted in the limited Soviet strike. It would be pretty far down the list, definitely not in the top 3. I believe Streiber has said as much, and that it was included because of the personal connection, and the reason given in the book (some military headquarters there?) was a weak excuse.

I can’t quite explain it, but it doesn’t feel right to me that Manhattan would be abandoned and salvaged like that. Seems like it would either be too dangerous for people to be there, or it would still be an actual city even if diminished. It seems like another thing done for the narrative and personal connection, to allow him to “return home” while also giving a reason he didn’t still live there.

But again, these are both minor points and really don’t detract from the work at all. San Antonio is little more than a bit of background flavor, and the story makes Manhattan well worth it.
by const_cast | 2025-06-07 04:36:44+00:00
Because if you're crunched for time then you're stressed, which for most people leads to much less reasonable decision making.

When I quit smoking, the hardest days were the stressful ones. It didn't matter that just the previous day I swore I would never have a cigarette again. I'm sitting in my car, I'm down on myself, and I would give anything in that moment for just a hit of release.

We're not robots. We're not efficient, we're not productive, we just kind of... do. Our systems don't make sense, they're not linear, they're not necessarily predictable. How the mind feels isn't the kind of thing we can just land a dart on.
by keiferski | 2025-06-07 04:37:25+00:00
This analogy doesn’t really work, because the former examples are ones in which humanity discovered that it existed in a larger world.

The recent AI example is humanity building, or attempting to build, a tool complex enough to mimic a human being.

If anything, you could use recent AI developments as proof of humanity’s uniqueness - what other animal is creating things of such a scale and complexity?
by ghuntley | 2025-06-07 04:38:17+00:00
> ChatGPT and Claude

Out of interest, have you built an agent? Experienced the power of 500 lines of code run in a loop with uncapped tool calls? It's a different experience and outcome to copy and paste'ing from a chat interface.

https://ampcode.com/how-to-build-an-agent

> You can optimize agents all the way down your conveyor belts, but none of it will replace the discretionary management of a human.

Concur! My personal goal is to reduce the amount of times I need to get down into the weeds so I can focus more on spending time with my kids.

> Having a thousand automated AI robots to maintain your code may be no more useful than a thousand chimps and typewriters to help you write Shakespeare.

Perhaps; time will tell. There's classes of activities that I do every day that right now could be automated through agents running with unlimited tool calls. Think about topics like Renovatebot. Like, why don't we have Renovatebot for that class of KTLO?
by kelnos | 2025-06-07 04:39:10+00:00
I would expect so. Some types of sports betting, like parlays, are mostly (entirely?) games of chance, so you avoid those. But the published odds of a team winning a match are subject to the research done and models made by the person setting the odds. If you have a better model, or somehow have access to better information, you could certainly end up with a profit in the long term.
by nebula8804 | 2025-06-07 04:40:09+00:00
>Stellantis? Surprised they have a bad reputation on cost (or, conversely, a reputation for evoking excitement), but I guess export market is different from domestic. Isn't Dacia part of that group? Seeing a lot with that badge here in Germany these days (even in Brandenburg, which is former DDR and therefore low GDP/capita).

Oh sorry I was referring to what is sold in the US.

When you are not unique in cost, efficiency, reliability, what do you have left? Make something that is cool.

If you want to sum up their US lineup in two videos just watch the following lol

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IB4qS9Lv5Mo

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MI_6FrQDrVw
by saghm | 2025-06-07 04:40:26+00:00
And now with their attempts to keep the tax cuts around, they've just decided to ignore the rule entirely and pretend that extending a temporary tax cut counts as not costing anything. Of course, there's nothing that would stop them from getting rid of the filibuster entirely either, but that honestly just makes it weirder to pretend that this somehow fulfills the requirements rather than just is taking advantage of the rules being only self-enforced.
by rented_mule | 2025-06-07 04:41:19+00:00
> Action leads to motivation, not the other way around.

I've found this to be very true. A trick I found that made this easier for me is to leave a trivial task to start tomorrow with, often with notes to remind myself what to do. Ideally the trivial task is on the way to something bigger, not finishing something. That gets me into my editor, gets me running the code / tests / etc., and gives me a trivially easy way to get moving. Then the motivation kicks in and I can start moving for real.

The same approach helps me with tasks outside of software development, and even outside of work.
by amfooladgar | 2025-06-07 04:42:03+00:00
Totally agree. That’s something I’ve been very mindful of from day one. The current focus is on professional networking, where the intrinsic risks tend to be lower, but it’s still important to get this right.

The app’s current features are designed to address those concerns: no exact location shown, full control over visibility, ability to leave short notes after matching (instead of forced chatting), blocking/reporting mechanisms, etc.

I’m approaching this very cautiously because the goal is to make intentional in-person networking feel safer and more natural, not to expose or pressure anyone. That said, I know this is a tricky space, and I’m very open to ideas or suggestions on how to make the privacy side even stronger.
by nebula8804 | 2025-06-07 04:43:57+00:00
The Bolt was the supposed "Tesla Killer". I'd argue it fell short of those expectation. Especially first Gen which was a car based on their cheapest platform to expedite the speed of which it was released. This was to prove to wall street that they had the expertise to make a product that could meet Tesla's challenge.

Given what they have learned over the last 8 or so years, of course the upcoming Bolt will be much better but my point was that the first (and second) gen Bolt was a rush job. In terms of sales I guess it depends on what the expectations were but a Tesla killer it was not.
by bigyabai | 2025-06-07 04:44:18+00:00
Is it? I think it's just hard to get the same dog to bark twice.

"ChatGPT killer" sounds really scary the first time. But once everyone has reacted to it and figures it's just as disappointing as ChatGPT, then they won't have any reason to react the next time it's lauded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_final_warning
by jaygreco | 2025-06-07 04:44:57+00:00
Glad I wasn’t the only one who thought this. The post is also missing one obvious thing that I expect in any technical post: code snippets. Let me see the code.

ChatGPT has ruined bullet points for the rest of us…

No offense but writing this blog post couldn’t take more than a few minutes, why spoil it with LLM? Shoot, use one to check grammar and recommend edits even.
by gaze | 2025-06-07 04:44:58+00:00
Fairness is the word people use but what I think they’re alluding to is adherence to some natural order of things, and that this itself is the measure of a healthy society. That might be the divine right of kings or it may be the order established by the invisible hand of the market. These arguments never go anywhere because it’s just an axiomatically different moral framework.
by jeisc | 2025-06-07 04:46:02+00:00
Full stack engineers are the best because they control the whole process. This is my method I made for myself: the Awful Backwards Software Method ABSM 1.) write your SQL queries first with all the CRLUD; the L is for logical deletes and updates 2.) then setup your database to use these queries modifying the queries as need be 3.) then in your front end create the functions which implement your queries in the language of your choice - John Eischen © ADAGP Paris art humanitarian use is authorized except for any AI uses

I don't think this is already a pattern but maybe somebody else is already doing it like the above so please let me know if it is the case
by thrance | 2025-06-07 04:46:51+00:00
The samples on the landing page are... not good, by any metric. The background jitters, details go missing from frame to frame, and the animations that should cycle (run, walk...) don't look like they do.

This is a prototype, at best. I would be ashamed of asking money for providing such a sloppy service.

Also, in your faq you have "You own the rights to your generated content.", which I don't think is true. AFAIK, you can't copyright AI art.