MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gylterud | 2025-06-15 06:20:30+00:00
I haven’t tried every version of make there is, but a few things about mk off the top of my head:

- Readability: $target, $prereq, $stem is much easier to read than Make’s $@, $<. Any white space can be used to indent.

- Flags after the target to do useful thing such as autodelete target om error (no more confusion on about partial files), and controlling verbosity, and specifying virtualness.

- Stricter when dealing with overlapping targets.

- Has a flag for printing why each target is being generated.

- Regex in targets is sometimes really useful! Taken together with the strictness towards overlapping targets this leads to less confusion overall.
by simonw | 2025-06-15 06:21:01+00:00
I'm convinced that the solution to stored procedures that people are afraid to update is automated tests. Write unit tests for them just like you would any other complex logic - the tests can evolve over time into a detailed spec for how they should work, and give you the ability to refactor or improve them with confidence later on.

For some reason stored procedures and automated testing seem to often not go together, maybe because they're often accompanied by an environment where DBAs and software developers are separate teams with separate sets of skills?
by zabzonk | 2025-06-15 06:22:13+00:00
> you probably want to have the bulk of your business logic written in C#

Perhaps, if the C# applications are the only ones accessing the database. But suppose multiple applications written in different languages (and for different purposes) need the database access? You can do this via stored procs or (better in my experience) by adding an intermediate server process which the applications use, via a publicly documented API, and which then talks to the the database which may provide stored proc access to the intermediate server.

Equally anecdotally:

An example is a server me and a couple of colleagues worked on at a big investment bank. The underlying databases were mostly proprietary from suppliers or written by other teams in the bank. And versioned (badly, eek!). We wrote the SQL queries/procs to access the data that the VB (now C# I guess) would not have been capable of (without enormous waste of effort), and then provided COM interfaces to our server that ran our queries. Mercifully, we didn't have to provide updates, but the same idea would have applied. This gives you more or less complete isolation between app and database.

Anyway, SPs can certainly fit into such an architecture, but might not be first (or second) choice.
by robocat | 2025-06-15 06:22:22+00:00
There's a potential for PCIE7 to leapfrog (depends on engineering and demand):

expect actual PCIe 7.0 devices and platforms on the market sometime in 2028 – 2029, if everything goes as planned

It seems SSDs get the tech more slowly but with a bit of luck 7 might beat 6 to market!
by fenomas | 2025-06-15 06:22:39+00:00
Thanks for replying - I kind of follow you but I only skimmed the paper. To be clear I was more responding to the replies about cognition, than to what you said about the eval regime.

Incidentally I think you might be misreading the paper's use of "superhuman"? I assume it's being used to mean "at a higher rate than the human control group", not (ironically) in the colloquial "amazing!" sense.
by pempem | 2025-06-15 06:22:56+00:00
Many, Many millions have been made on pennies pulled from consumers daily.

$3 in a personal vacuum is one thing (and still adds up if you consider each service that could do this) $3 across 20% of users, lets say, globally, daily. Adds up.

Consumers have the ability to also contribute to and define how engagements with businesses look. If the government won't help us, we have to continue on our own.
by strogonoff | 2025-06-15 06:23:39+00:00
> So the whole information is not lost but the precision / details can be yes.

That does not seem a meaningful statement. Information, and by far most of it, is necessarily discarded. The creative task of the photographer is in deciding what is to be discarded (both at shooting time and at editing time) and shaping the remaining data to make the optimal use of the available display space. Various ways of competing dynamic range is often part of this process.

> like a compressor in audio production

Audio is a decent analogy and an illustration of why it is a subjective and creative process. You don’t want to just naively compress everything into a wall of illegible sound, you want to make some things pop at the expense of other things, which is a similar task in photography. Like with photography, you must lose a lot of information at it, because if you preserve all the finest details no one would be able to hear much in real-life circumstances.
by toast0 | 2025-06-15 06:23:47+00:00
You certainly can have Make pull in dependencies... But I would usually just have Make look for the dependencies and ask the user to install them.

You would want to mark the dependencies anyway, since when you update your compiler, IMHO, that invalidates the objects compiled with that compiler, so the compiler is a dependency of the object.

That said, I don't distribute much software. What works for personal software and small team software may not be effective for widely distributed software that needs to build in many environments.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-06-15 06:24:44+00:00
>This is a typical critique that sort of assumes you have to be right about everything to be right about anything.

If you don't understand the fundamentals and basics of the underlying science, then you can't really be right about anything at all. It should shock and disturb you to listen someone get it this wrong, this "not even wrong" level of nonsense. There's no insight to be found in such prattle.
by bsder | 2025-06-15 06:25:15+00:00
> if I even so much as move the wrong way, the system stops and makes me wait for a staff member who is busy dealing with 6 other red-flashing checkouts.

This is completely the fault of the store.

This is on irritating display with the HEB grocery stores in Texas. Go to a standard HEB and self-checkout has exactly the failures you are talking about. Go to a Central Market HEB (the upscale, Whole Foods-like version) and the self-checkouts don't do ANY of those irritating things (alcohol being the exception).

Funny that.
by waiter-to-dev | 2025-06-15 06:25:58+00:00
You're absolutely right to call this out, and I appreciate the feedback. I made some mistakes with the landing page copy:

1. The "5000 have already taken advantage" was AI-generated placeholder text that I should have removed before going live. I've just updated it to reflect the actual metrics (6 paying customers).

2. The reviews were also AI-generated examples to demonstrate the feature, not real customer reviews. I should have made that clear or removed them entirely.

This is a learning moment for me - I got caught up in trying to make the landing page look more established than it actually is. The core product works (it's a tool for content creators to generate video ideas), but I clearly need to be more transparent about the actual numbers and not use misleading social proof.

Thanks for keeping me honest. I'm updating the site now to reflect the real metrics. The 6 paying customers and $65 MRR are genuine numbers I'm proud of, even if they're small.
by gametorch | 2025-06-15 06:26:20+00:00
I agree there --- if you want to program, don't use an LLM!

Sometimes I do turn off the LLM on purpose because it is intrinsically enjoyable to program. I like to do things like Project Euler and I would never see the point of having an LLM do it for you, unless you were explicitly reading its code to try to learn something new.
by socalgal2 | 2025-06-15 06:29:12+00:00
I'm working on new API. I asked the LLM to read the spec and write tests for it. It does. I don't know if that's "reasoning". I know that no tests exist for this API. I know that the internet is not full of training data for this API because it's a new API. It's also not a CRUD API or some other API that's got a common pattern. And yet, with a very short prompt, Gemini Code Assist wrote valid tests for a new feature.

It certainly feels like more than fancy auto-complete. That is not to say I haven't run into issue but I'm still often shocked at how far it gets. And that's today. I have no idea what to expect in 6 months, 12, 2 years, 4, etc.
Disturbing Rumor – PBS NewsHour (Brooks / Capehart)
by mobileturdfctry | 2025-06-15 06:30:50+00:00
Not sure why my link directly to the YouTube video was flagged, since this is valid news from a legitimate (centrist) news source PBS NewsHour.

The rumor is apparently becoming more widespread among politicians and people who work in government. That the Trump administration is probing for ways to create the conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act. Both the left of center and right of center commentators are both in agreement that the Trump administration is trying to do everything that it can to be as unproductive as possible in the loudest most obnoxious ways.

Please look this up for yourself if curious, and search for the video titled: "Capehart and Ponnuru on the politics of Israel's attack and Iran's response"
by hellojimbo | 2025-06-15 06:33:17+00:00
The only real point is number 5.

> Huge vindication for what I have been saying all along: we need AI that integrates both neural networks and symbolic algorithms and representations

This is basically agents which is literally what everyone has been talking about for the past year lol.

> (Importantly, the point of the Apple paper goal was to see how LRM’s unaided explore a space of solutions via reasoning and backtracking, not see how well it could use preexisting code retrieved from the web.

This is a false dichotomy. The thing that apple tested was dumb and dl'ing code from the internet is also dumb. What would've been interesting is, given the problem, would a reasoning agent know how to solve the problem with access to a coding env.

> Do LLM’s conceptually understand Hanoi?

Yes and the paper didn't test for this. The paper basically tested the equivalent of, can a human do hanoi in their head.

I feel like what the author is advocating for is basically a neural net that can send instructions to an ALU/CPU, but I haven't seen anything promising that shows that its better than just giving an agent access to a terminal
by cyberax | 2025-06-15 06:34:01+00:00
> For now they’re well surveilled and a premium vehicle. Soon they will be filthy pods in a race to the bottom with all the charm of a public bathroom.

So, like transit?

I will likely have my own personal self-driving vehicle. And I'm 100% sure that there'll be an upmarket segment with slightly more expensive cars that are kept more clean than the rest.
by MoonGhost | 2025-06-15 06:34:05+00:00
> The average human is useless for pretty much everything but capable of learning to perform almost any task

But only the limited number of tasks per human.

> Or perhaps AGI should be able to reach the level of an experienced professional in any task.

Even if it performs just better than untrained human but on any task this will be superhuman level. As no human can do it.
by branko_d | 2025-06-15 06:34:50+00:00
> looping through cursors, making business logic decisions, calculating things, etc.

Interesting. Can you share more details about the "non-data" processing that was done? Were they doing heavy mathematical calculations and such?

> change in business logic that would normally only need to update application code, now invalidates the stored procedure's cached execution plan

As for plan cache invalidation - the most extreme case I saw was on the order of 5-10s. Basically, it depends on the size of that one stored procedure - not on all other stored procedures that may call it or be called by it. What was the actual time that they got?
by SOLAR_FIELDS | 2025-06-15 06:36:15+00:00
Is this some sort of a scam? The driver cannot even mark the ride as completed without being in the area right? So they have to drive it anyway. I can’t imagine they would be on the platform for long if this happened on a regular basis. I would say it’s probably an accident but how could this behavior be accidental? Someone might accidentally say that they picked you up, but they couldn’t accidentally then drive an empty car to the destination.
by anal_reactor | 2025-06-15 06:41:57+00:00
> The anthropization of llms is getting off the charts.

What's wrong with that? If it quacks like a duck... it's just a complex pile of organic chemistry, ducks aren't real because the concept of "a duck" is wrong.

I honestly believe there is a degree of sentience in LLMs. Sure, they're not sentient in the human sense, but if you define sentience as whatever humans have, then of course no other entity can be sentient.
by userbinator | 2025-06-15 06:42:30+00:00
TPMs being widespread and accepted is a problem. It means that everyone has been put into a noose, but one that just hasn't yet been tightened. As evidence of what we're up against, Stallman saw it coming 25+ years ago, kept warning about it, and look what they did to him.

Relevant comment of mine 3.5 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29859999
by bsder | 2025-06-15 06:43:51+00:00
> Why would you assume that all groupings of people commit welfare fraud at the same rate?

Because the goal is NOT just wiping out fraud, but, instead, minimizing harm or possibly maximizing positive results.

Minimizing fraud is super easy--just don't give out any benefits. No fraud--problem solved.

That's not the final goal, though. As such, the ideal amount of fraud is somewhere above zero. We want to avoid falsely penalizing people who, practically be definition, probably don't have the resources to fight the false classification. And we want to minimize the amount of aid resources we use policing said aid.

The goal is to find a balance. Is helping 100 people but carrying 1 fraudster a good tradeoff? Should it be 1000? Should it be 10? Well, that's a political discussion.
by adwn | 2025-06-15 06:47:08+00:00
> a small LLM, say, with 200–300K weights

A "small Large Language Model", you say? So a "Language Model"? ;-)

> Such an LLM could have handled grammar and code autocompletion, basic linting, or documentation queries and summarization.

No, not even close. You're off by 3 orders of magnitude if you want even the most basic text understanding, 4 OOM if you want anything slightly more complex (like code autocompletion), and 5–6 OOM for good speech recognition and generation. Hardware was very much a limiting factor.
by btilly | 2025-06-15 06:48:40+00:00
For every n, the function will return a function, that PA proves has a proof in PA.

Suppose that we're in a nonstandard model. For all standard n, there really will be a proof. For nonstandard n, there may or may not actually be a proof.

And so PA cannot prove from the fact that it proved the existence of a proof, that PA actually proves it.
by motorest | 2025-06-15 06:49:15+00:00
> I don't feel we are getting results that are thousands of times better today.

You are getting results that are way better than thousands of times. You just aren't aware where they are showing up.

To give you a glimpse, the same modelling problems which a couple of decades ago tool days to come up with a crude solution are now being executed within a loop in optimization problems.

You are also seeing multiphysics and coupling problems showing up in mundane applications. We're talking about problems that augment the same modelling problems that a couple of decades ago tool days to solve with double or triple the degrees of freedom.

Without the availability of these supercomputers the size of credit cards, the whole field of computer-aided engineering would not exist.

Also, to boot, there are indeed diminished returns. Increasing computational resources unblocks constraints such as being able to use doubles instead of floats. This means that lowering numerical errors in 3 or 4 decimal places comes for free at the expense of taking around 4 times longer to solve the same problem.

To top things off, do you think the results of two decades ago were possible without employing a great deal of simplifications and crude approximations? As legend has it, the F117 Nighthawk got it's design due to the computational limits of the time. Since then, stealth planes became more performant and with a smoother design. That's what you get when your computational resources are a thousands times better.
by rendall | 2025-06-15 06:49:32+00:00
I was a tourist in Athens once. Adjacent to the Presidential Mansion is the National Garden, quite lovely. At the time it had a miserable little zoo. In one of the cages was a pair of bedraggled hens. Their backs were entirely bare of any feathers. The reason they were bedraggled and bare was because they were locked in with a rooster. That rooster would mount and rut with them every four seconds or so, all day long, every day. It was one of the most cruel and grotesque tableus I've ever seen.
by retsibsi | 2025-06-15 06:49:56+00:00
> Click and click is slower than click+drag, it’s just obviously two extra movements (a full extra press and an extra release).

I don't think this is right, because the second release is irrelevant (a click-click move happens on the second mousedown, not the second mouseup) and the first release can be done in parallel with the mouse movement. So really it is:

mousedown -> drag -> mouseup

vs.

mousedown -> (mouseup while moving) -> mousedown
by rocqua | 2025-06-15 06:53:03+00:00
As far as I know, most real screens decided to have different display based on HDR or SDR input. Mostly because on HDR they are more willing to do very high brightness for a very small part of the screen.

Most displays have the ability to simulate their HDR range on SDR input I believe by dynamically inferring the contrast and seeing if it can punch up small local bright areas.
by jsnell | 2025-06-15 06:54:27+00:00
The paper doesn't mention it because either the researchers did not care to check the outputs manually, or reporting what was in the outputs would have made it obvious what their motives were.

When this research has been reproduced, the "failures" on the Tower of Hanoi are the model printing out a bunch of steps, saying there is no point in doing it thousands of times more. And they they'd either output an the algorithm for printing the rest in words or code
by fc417fc802 | 2025-06-15 06:54:55+00:00
This is true, but when there's only a couple options in town you have to assess if you're going to need to use that service in the future. That said, I find it a bit strange that it's legal to retaliate for making use of a right afforded to you by law. It would be like taking them to small claims court, winning, and being banned as a result. (Now that I wrote that I'm wondering if it's a thing that happens.)
Show HN: Mdc – just another Markdown viewer with ToC and CLI support
by zoetin45 | 2025-06-15 06:55:34+00:00
I built mdc, a lightweight desktop Markdown viewer with auto-generated table of contents, in just 2 days using Claude Code.

What it does: - Clean, responsive Markdown rendering - Automatically generates table of contents from document headers - Simple file selection interface - Built with Tauri (React + Rust)

Claude Code experience:

What impressed me most was how Claude Code handled the full-stack development. It took only 2 days from starting the project to release. I have bunch of experience of TypeScript/React, but nothing of Tauri/Rust. It seemed Claude isn't good at Tauri either but "Think deeply" prompt worked in terms of solving issues. The development flow was remarkably fast: - Day 1: All the app features - Day 2: Release automation with github actions

Installation: brew tap zoetin45/tap brew install mdc

Or grab binaries from: https://github.com/zoetin45/mdc Tech stack: Tauri + React + TypeScript + Tailwind CSS

I'm curious about others' experiences with AI-assisted development - has anyone else tried building desktop apps this way?
by wpollock | 2025-06-15 06:56:54+00:00
Good to know, thanks! I only tested on Fedora. If anyone cares, here's a link for a tarball for testing this; read the simple makefile for details:

<https://wpollock.com/AUnix2/dll-demo.tgz>

(I wrote this long ago, as a linking demo for system administration students.)
by pjmlp | 2025-06-15 06:58:06+00:00
A few points, Wirth usually always bootstraped his compilers, writing just enough Assembly for the minimal version 0 of the language and go from there.

Secondly, as we all know it isn't grammar and semantics alone that sell compilers, it is someone heavily pushing for adoption, deep pockets companies willing to do everything for adoption, or some successful product on the market that makes learning the language unavoidable when reaching for said product.

Oberon had nothing of that.

C++ had being from UNIX's birthplace, quick adoption by C compiler vendors and UNIX clones, exactly because of that. While being pushed by IBM, Microsoft and Apple on their GUI OS frameworks.

Rust as great language as it is, if it had been some university language done as someone thesis, not tied to Mozzilla, and their efforts to fix Firefox security issues with their C++ codebase, most likely would not taken off.
by roenxi | 2025-06-15 06:59:04+00:00
I don't think that'd hold up against a legal review. It seems like an unreasonable position that some neighbourhood is so terrible that standing there for 20 minutes is an imminent threat. It might even be true, but that isn't a baseline a judge should really accept. The residents who live there obviously get through the day.

It may well have been very dangerous, but realistically it is hard to make dropping someone off in a residential area a crime. Threatening a driver with physical violence is definitely a crime though.
by morepedantic | 2025-06-15 07:00:14+00:00
By law, Social Security invests surpluses in US Treasury securities. So the US government "lends" money to itself, where it is spent that year on government programs for the taxpayers in that year. The securities are backed by taxpayers in the future.

For example, in 2005 Social Security had a 172B surplus, but the US government had a deficit of 318B. Social Security's 172B surplus was spent by the US government in the same year for government services on the people of 2005. The money was spent on voters, taxpayers, and citizens in 2005, but the liability was recorded against people who hadn't been born yet.

You've referred to a fiction, but reality is as I've stated. The US government loves creating fictions, but that doesn't mean we visit the Vietnam Police Action Memorial.
by luckylion | 2025-06-15 07:00:49+00:00
> It is considered to be unethical to discriminate upon things a person has no control over, such as their nationality, gender, age or natural hair color.

Nationality and natural hair color I understand, but age and gender? A lot of behaviors are not evenly distributed. Riots after a football match? You're unlikely to find a lot of elderly women (and men, but especially women) involved. Someone is fattening a child? That elderly women you've excluded for riots suddenly becomes a prime suspect.

> things like a car brand are entirely dependent on one's own actions

If you assume perfect free will, sure. But do you?
by masklinn | 2025-06-15 07:02:03+00:00
I would assume the mask only covers the damaged areas. This means it replaces manual retouching, so you still need to clean the original painting and remove the varnish in order to get at the original colors, and as part of the usual cleanups (removal of old conservation, stabilisation, infill). The article specifically says that the film is adhered to and via a varnish layer.

Makes me wonder how it would handle heavy impasto tho.