MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bongodongobob | 2025-06-17 03:54:22+00:00
I think the bad trips are good though, it's almost the point. Why are you feeling bad? It's usually because you're in a physical or mental place you don't want to be, yet, when sober, you think it is where you should be. The incongruity of the situation is the lesson and the point.

When I was in college, I tracked down some mushrooms, bought em, and ran away on my own to trip out. I found myself on a bench, next to a river surrounded by trash in a mixed industrial area. I saw cig butts and empty beer cans on the ground. Looked at my ripped jeans and thought "Am I trash? Why am I here?" It was a shitty feeling and I got really down. I realized that getting fucked up for its own sake was stupid, and it's about sharing time with others that's actually important, no matter what drug you're on. I started crying and felt horrible, but the next day, I had a new sense of worth and a new frame of reference for the world that has persisted for 20+ years. I'll always remember that shitty trip on that shitty bench.
by energywut | 2025-06-17 03:55:43+00:00
If only we didn't need to resort to selfish reasons for accessibility. Even looking past the idea that most, if not all, of us will benefit from a more accessible world, it makes me so sad when I hear people say "it's just not worth it".

To me that's equivalent to saying, "we know our system has bugs, but we only want our blind users to experience them". It's just... such a downer of a way to look at the world.
by throwaway7783 | 2025-06-17 03:56:39+00:00
Nothing is essential to the universe, the universe does not need us. We need it exactly as it is today, and that is it. Everything else is stuff we made up to understand the universe weakly, or to cope with life. This is not nihilism, but meaning to life is meaningful only in the context of humans and has nothing to do with universe needing us.
by timewizard | 2025-06-17 03:57:21+00:00
Managing subscriptions and blocking (or unblocking) channels are subpar. Watch history, search history and comment history are all afterthoughts and it shows. Managing playlists and watching through playlists are unusual and glitchy. Search filters are weak. The audio only experience is just a gaping hole in the video player.

Youtube music is fine-ish. Search is pretty weak and prefers recommendations over results. The controls for playlist Play, Play with Shuffle, and Play with Autoadd are fairly confusing especially between the app and the desktop version. Creating and managing multiple playlists is a frustrating experience and not thought out at all. It constantly feeling the need to change the album art on my playlists.

You pay to not be annoyed. You're not paying for a "premium" product in any way.
by parpfish | 2025-06-17 03:57:30+00:00
Here’s an advertising model I’ve thought about but never seen:

The app itself is 100% ad free and runs on credits. You get credits through se other portal by logging in to watch ads whenever it’s convenient for you.

Good app experience for the user, and potentially better experiences for the advertisers because they get the target audience when they are most open to ads (and not annoyed by them).
by euleriancon | 2025-06-17 03:58:00+00:00
To me, the point the friend is making is, just like you said, that you don't need to review every line of code in a package, just the interface. The author misses the point that there truly is code that you trust without seeing it. At the moment AI code isn't as trustworthy as a well tested package but that isn't intrinsic to the technology, just a byproduct of the current state. As AI code becomes more reliable, it will likely become the case that you only need to read the subset of the interface you import/link and use.
by pizlonator | 2025-06-17 03:58:00+00:00
Do you remember a case where it did cause a crash or a miscompile, and it wasn't also a case where that same crash/miscompile could have happened under default/optimal phase order?

I can easily imagine that reordering phases increases overall likelihood of surfacing bugs that are there anyway.

I have a harder time imagining a dependence on canonical form that leads to a crash under phase reordering but is totally sound otherwise.
by nrds | 2025-06-17 04:00:03+00:00
> And gravity seemingly treats all those bits as a single object.

It does not; but when you learned about gravity in school or wherever, you were only presented with scenarios in which it was valid to do so. Specifically, for Newtonian gravity, an object whose density is spherically symmetrical may be treated as a point mass at its center (w/r/t other point masses farther from the center than any point in the first object); this can be seen by integrating Newton's equation.

There's no reason to attribute this to special behavior by gravity with respect to "objects" which you identify. You could decompose a (spherically symmetrical) mass into several different spherically symmetrical "objects" and sum up their influence on a test mass, and the result is the same as if you had treated the original mass as a point mass. The hypothesis that gravity is "treating" the object one way or another now fails to distinguish all these possibilities; it's no longer physically meaningful.

At sufficiently large distances, or for sufficiently large ratio of large to small mass, the difference between, say, a planet and a spherically symmetrical mass is so small with respect to the main effect that it can simply be ignored.
by Winsaucerer | 2025-06-17 04:00:45+00:00
This kind of thing is my main use, boilerplate stuff And for scripts that I don't care about -- e.g., if I need a quick bash script to do a once off task.

For harder problems, my experience is that it falls over, although I haven't been refining my LLM skills as much as some do. It seems that the bigger the project, the more it integrates with other things, the worse AI is. And moreover, for those tasks it's important for me or a human to do it because (a) we think about edge cases while we work through the problem intellectually, and (b) it gives us a deep understanding of the system.
Show HN: Frozti.io instantly turns design into live UI and production ready code
by amarneethi | 2025-06-17 04:02:42+00:00
Hi HN,

I built Frozti.io — an AI tool that converts Figma designs, screenshots, or even rough UI images into working interactive previews and clean front-end code that’s ready for production.

Frozti is for product managers, designers, and front-end engineers who want to move fast without starting from scratch. It’s especially useful for:

-Quickly generating UI prototypes for demos or stakeholder reviews

-Sales and GTM teams who need clickable flows without dev time

-Frontend engineers who want to skip the boilerplate and focus on logic and integration

The AI outputs production-ready code and allows customization based on your preferred framework or code conventions, so it can plug right into your existing stack.

If you’re skeptical — I get it. Send me 2 screens at challenge@frozti.io and I’ll reply with real working code in under 40 minutes.

I’d love feedback from the HN community on:

-Output quality

-What features you’d want to see next

-Any edge cases or examples you'd like to see it handle

You can try it here: https://frozti.io/signin

Appreciate any thoughts, and happy to answer questions here!
by whoisyc | 2025-06-17 04:04:21+00:00
Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. Plus there are frequent sales. Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of making people feel “I have to buy this now or the deal will be gone.”

I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent.

(The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)
by udev4096 | 2025-06-17 04:04:45+00:00
WhatsApp has been selling your metadata to facebook for quite a while now. Their marketing gimmick of "end-to-end encryption" makes everyone think it's safe and private but here's the thing, your messages don't matter to them. It's the metadata they use to profile you. Remember the quote from Michael Hayden: "We kill people based on metadata."
by rustcleaner | 2025-06-17 04:05:09+00:00
Power manufactures 'truth' [memes] because the source of power is everybody's collective actions, and that has to be farmed in various ways through a consent manufacturing process. Change what people believe and you change their actions. Change their actions and you change the nature of the beast-machine they form, upon which oligarchy attempts to ride. Magick goes much deeper than parlor tricks of optics, or spooky hocuspocus spiritual bullshit. It is in use everyday by various institutions, and most who use magick don't even realize it.

Examples:

-The beliefs you hold about the world and others, much which was shaped by childhood media;

-When Bush tells you Iraq has WMDs;

-When the car commercial comes on, showing you a scenic vista and for a moment you forget yourself;

-When you believe X, but the commenters in article comment sections sway the opposite (bots);

to name a small handful. Sounds too far fetched?

Here is the machine magicians program for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo_e0EvEZn8

Do you see the zone in this machine, where magick can exist? It's the zone where you experience #FF00FF as magenta (if you're not colorblind). People really see what they expect to see, not what is there in front of them unless they really spend some effort!

What do they want to see? They want to see what you set them up to want to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykzkvK1XaTE
by exoverito | 2025-06-17 04:05:38+00:00
Continuum fallacy. Might as well claim that there's no such thing as blue or violet, since there's a gradient between them.

Also you can establish homogeneity using genetic analysis such as the fixation index. Unsurprisingly, Swedes and Finns are extremely closely related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#Autosomal_genet...

There are many possible metrics to measure heterogeneity, such as linguistic and religious diversity, variations in value systems, etc.
by beckford | 2025-06-17 04:05:55+00:00
Yes, there is always verbal instruction (not really explanation) to start with the students. For example, most students I work with don't know how to open a terminal ... they need top-down guidance with copy and paste. The most explanation they would get at the start is that a terminal is where you can copy text and see a response. Pointing them at a web page with directions (mine or others) has never worked for the vast majority of them. The Rust pages in particular... some of them would not understand that they have to press the greater than symbol (>) to go to the next page, and almost all of them would not know they had to strip $ from the commands (or have a clue what Linux is). I think the success rate would be near zero (0%) for that Rust guide without hand-holding. Of course, once they've seen how to do something, they should not need as much handholding.

So eventually we come back and redo the content ... and that becomes the time that explanations are added.

I do like the Rust doc for experienced devs though, although I'll quibble that the doc is not good for Windows users. I'm add a separate explanatory quick start for experienced devs.
by alganet | 2025-06-17 04:07:22+00:00
> I don't agree that you can pick one cherry example

Benchmarks and evaluations are made of cherry picked examples. What makes my example invalid, and benchmark prompts valid? (it's a rethorical question, you don't need to answer).

> write documentation to make it easy for LLMs to assimilate.

If we ever do that, it means LLMs failed at their job. They are supposed to help and understand us, not the other way around.
Show HN: I recreated 90s Mode X demoscene effects in JavaScript and Canvas
by gneissguise | 2025-06-17 04:07:31+00:00
After 25 years of writing software, I was feeling nostalgic for the kinds of things that got me into programming in the first place: the old DOS demoscene. I spent a weekend seeing if I could recapture some of that INT 13H VGA magic using today's web tech, but with the old-school constraints of doing it from scratch.

The result is this portfolio of ten classic effects running in a single HTML file. It's all vanilla JavaScript writing to a <canvas> element, with no external libraries. It was a fun challenge to implement things like:

* The color palette cycling and smooth fading in the Plasma demo. * The buffer-averaging algorithm for the Fire effect to make the flames feel more natural. * The distance-based texture crossfading in the Tunnel to create the illusion of flying through different sections. * A 2D scalar field for the Metaballs to calculate the surface normals for that classic blended, metallic look (I did the best I could with the given constraints).

It was a great exercise in getting back to first principles and a reminder of how much those early demo programmers could accomplish with so little. I hope it brings back some good memories for others who grew up with this stuff.

I'd love to hear about your favorite classic demos or if there are any other iconic effects you think would be a fun challenge to add.

Cheers!
by xelxebar | 2025-06-17 04:08:47+00:00
One of my favorite books is The Mezzanine[0], which takes place entirely as a man ascends a single elevator but spins off onto all kinds of tangents that comment on and express exuberance about the most mundane things.

There's an entire thread on the evolution of stapler design, elaborations on the invention of perforations, and abundant self-reflection. It's almost like a hybrid of Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" and Hegel.

There's something magical about paying close attention to the mundane, IMHO.

Praise dullness!

[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mezzanine
by epiccoleman | 2025-06-17 04:09:30+00:00
I am currently subscribed to Claude Pro, which is $20/mo and gives you plenty to experiment with by giving you access to Projects and MCP in Claude Desktop and also Claude Code for a flat monthly fee. (I think there are usage limits but I haven't hit them).

I've probably fed $100 in API tokens into the OpenAI and Anthropic consoles over the last two years or so.

I was subscribed to Cursor for a while too, though I'm kinda souring on it and looking at other options.

At one point I had a ChatGPT pro sub, I have found Claude more valuable lately. Same goes for Gemini, I think it's pretty good but I haven't felt compelled to pay for it.

I guess my overall point is you don't have to break the bank to try this stuff out. Shell out the $20 for a month, cancel immediately, and if you miss it when it expires, resub. $20 is frankly a very low bar to clear - if it's making me even 1% more productive, $20 is an easy win.
by o11c | 2025-06-17 04:09:40+00:00
The "different laws" thing really should be handled by changing the types of all the nodes around the critical passes. Unfortunately, every language I know sucks at typing if you want to avoid all the copying that the naive approach gives you. (remember especially that some types will only exist during certain phases. The most basic of these is: which token types are valid in a parse tree and which aren't? E.g. binary operator tokens usually remain valid, but parentheses disappear, whereas many new types appear. For later phases this only gets more complicated.)
by Winsaucerer | 2025-06-17 04:10:50+00:00
There's a difference between reviewing code by developers you trust, and reviewing code by developers you don't trust or AI you don't trust.

Although tbh, even in the worse case I think I am still faster at reviewing than writing. The only difference is though, those reviews will never have had the same depth of thought and consideration as when I write the code myself. So reviews are quicker, but also less thorough/robust than writing for me.
by metalrain | 2025-06-17 04:11:00+00:00
I don't think lithium ion is even the right comparison in this case. This could more comparable in spirit, although 900 times bigger in capacity and not yet finished. https://www.vantaanenergia.fi/en/about-us/projects/varanto-t...

If you try gauge the price from that cavern storage (estimated 200 million euros) then lets say it has some economies of scale, maybe this sand battery costs like 500k-1M euros.

If you just heat the storage on cheap hours and output at high prices. You could in theory cycle (24*365/2) hours at 1 MW so 4,4 GWh of energy per year. So how could be the project profitable?

In 10 year period with full utilization price differential would need to be 22.8 €/MWh to break even with 1M investment, then add operating costs, loan interest, etc. With more realistic utilization it would need to even higher.

Maybe you amortize costs over 20, 30 years. But its's even more uncertain what cost of electricity will be. I think it only makes sense if this storage allows them to electrify heat production replacing much more expensive current production.
by SlowTao | 2025-06-17 04:12:49+00:00
When the Apple App store came along it was wild seeing how quickly software went from $10 down to 0.99c in the space of less than a year. And then it was only a matter of time before it dropped to zero. Once it hit zero, the tolerance for payment of any kind went to zero as well for a very large portion of people.

Apps and the internet in general, for most people, is considered almost weightless and zero cost. In the race for market dominance meant dropping the price as low as possible to drive out competition.
by muppetman | 2025-06-17 04:12:50+00:00
I pay for YT Premium. Not because I care for stupid videos, but because you get YT Music for free with it... Spotify is the hottest of garbage in my opinion, constantly trying to push podcasts at me. Why more people don't cancel Spotify and just pay for YT Premium - you get ad-free videos and all the music of Spotify. Plus with YT Music you can upload your own FLAC/MP3s to it, so all that odd werid music you've got that isn't on Spotify you can have anywhere you're logged into your YT Music account.
by burningChrome | 2025-06-17 04:13:44+00:00
>> it makes me so sad when I hear people say "it's just not worth it".

Companies are going to find out the hard way then. I work for a large corporation and we've had a consistent stream of companies and individuals contacting us about accessibility with several of our apps and sites.

This means more time to fix or completely redo these because they built them with accessibility issues baked into them and now we're tasked with fixing them or else deal with the legal ramifications.

Now that several states have included anything online or digital in the ADA, that means we now have a handful of law firms in CA and NY that are filing accessibility lawsuits. Just in 2024 there were over 4,000 lawsuits filed, the majority of them at the state level. The old adage that companies were taking a risk by not having their online apps and sites being accessible is a very real threat now.

I feel like the trend is finally starting to turn and companies are taking accessibility a lot more seriously now.
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-06-17 04:14:38+00:00
The skill ceiling might be "high" but it's not like investing years of practice to become a great pianist. The most experienced AI coder in the world has about three years of practice working this way, much of which is obsoleted because the models have changed to the point where some lessons learned on GPT 3.5 don't transfer. There aren't teachers with decades of experience to learn from, either.
by ranger_danger | 2025-06-17 04:15:50+00:00
Of course the decision is ultimately up to the individual judge/jury, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one that would consider it reasonable that an ordinary dealing of drugs be akin to an "intent to harm".

Unless the circumstances of a particular drug transaction directly caused some other harm, like a fight, I highly doubt the charges would be considered 'violent' and hence carry the harm aspect.
by tptacek | 2025-06-17 04:16:18+00:00
I'm fine with anybody saying AI agents don't work for their work-style and am not looking to rebut this piece, but I'm going to take this opportunity to call something out.

The author writes "reviewing code is actually harder than most people think. It takes me at least the same amount of time to review code not written by me than it would take me to write the code myself". That sounds within an SD of true for me, too, and I had a full-time job close-reading code (for security vulnerabilities) for many years.

But it's important to know that when you're dealing with AI-generated code for simple, tedious, or rote tasks --- what they're currently best at --- you're not on the hook for reading the code that carefully, or at least, not on the same hook. Hold on before you jump on me.

Modern Linux kernels allow almost-arbitrary code to be injected at runtime, via eBPF (which is just a C program compiled to an imaginary virtual RISC). The kernel can mostly reliably keep these programs from crashing the kernel. The reason for that isn't that we've solved the halting problem; it's that eBPF doesn't allow most programs at all --- for instance, it must be easily statically determined that any backwards branch in the program runs for a finite and small number of iterations. eBPF isn't even good at determining that condition holds; it just knows a bunch of patterns in the CFG that it's sure about and rejects anything that doesn't fit.

That's how you should be reviewing agent-generated code, at least at first; not like a human security auditor, but like the eBPF verifier. If I so much as need to blink when reviewing agent output, I just kill the PR.

If you want to tell me that every kind of code you've ever had to review is equally tricky to review, I'll stipulate to that. But that's not true for me. It is in fact very easy to me to look at a rote recitation of an idiomatic Go function and say "yep, that's what that's supposed to be".
by nyanpasu64 | 2025-06-17 04:16:26+00:00
A friend had to reflash a monitor (Acer K222HQL) with a corrupted EDID over the HDMI port. I confirmed that it has three input ports (VGA, DVI, and HDMI) each with their own EEPROM chip next to the port (the friend had to lift a pin on the HDMI EEPROM to successfully reflash it; she should've connected it to ground but didn't). I found a manual online (https://global-download.acer.com/GDFiles/Document/User%20Man...) saying that the monitor supports DDC, implying it does do the multi-peripheral I2C trick.

I have another broken monitor's mainboard where the VGA and DVI's EDID pins go through 100 ohm resistors to {unpopulated 8-pin footprints, as well as the main chip}. I think this means the design considered saving EDID on dedicated EEPROM chips, but ended up integrating the data on the display receiver instead.