MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by goosejuice | 2025-06-05 21:28:19+00:00
225 messages every 5 hours? You hit that on the side while you're doing your day job? I suppose if you push all work to Claude and do nothing else all day it could be a concern but I don't think it would be a very effective way to work in it's current state unless you want to be left with a giant mess.

I admit their transparency around limits is a bit questionable. Why don't they just list out the tokens and remaining time?
by btown | 2025-06-05 21:29:09+00:00
Lopez v. Apple (2024) seems to be a recent and useful example of this; my lay understanding is that Apple was found to have failed in its duty to switch from auto-deletion (even if that auto-deletion was contractually promised to users) to an evidence-preservation level of retention, immediately when litigation was filed.

https://codiscovr.com/news/fumiko-lopez-et-al-v-apple-inc/

https://app.ediscoveryassistant.com/case_law/58071-lopez-v-a...

Perhaps the larger lesson here is: if you don't want your service provider to end up being required to retain your private queries, there's really no way to guarantee it, and the only real mitigation is to choose a service provider who's less likely to be sued!

(Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
by Python3267 | 2025-06-05 21:30:32+00:00
> In essence, you and others see the impending crash - others do not?

The CTO left and several of the top talent have already left. Leadership and HR knows its a doom spiral right now, but the normal business folks have no clue what's about to hit them

> or he might want to hand you an anchor to help you swim

Unfortunately they're that person.

> You are not alone, various startups have failed over the years - small/large. Their histories are probably archived in HN and will offer insights/connections. Good Luck.!!

Thank you very much.
Show HN: YOYO – AI Version Control for Vibe Coding
by itgelganbold | 2025-06-05 21:30:32+00:00
Hey HN —

Been deep in vibe coding with AI tools like Cursor and Windsurf — but sometimes, AI edits don’t go as planned.

You hit revert… and only some files roll back, or your repo ends up in a weird state. Especially messy when you’ve got multiple chats open and you're mid-flow.

So I built YOYO — a lightweight version control layer for the fast, chaotic phase of coding where you're exploring, iterating, and letting AI throw stuff at your repo.

It works across Cursor, Windsurf, and VSCode — wherever you’re coding with AI right now.

Not trying to replace Git. Git’s great when you’re ready to commit. YOYO is for the part before that.

What it gives you: - One-click save, preview, and restore — no broken states, no chat digging - Shadow Git — stores versions separately, so your real repo stays clean - AI-generated summaries of what changed in each snapshot - Natural-language search — ask things like: - What did I do in v3? - Show my dark mode refactor - When did I add favorites?

A new wave of builders is coding with AI — and not all of them are traditional devs. They just want a way to save progress and undo when AI goes off track.

YOYO gives them the save button — without the Git gymnastics.

Try it here: https://runyoyo.com

If AI has ever broken your code mid-flow, I’d love to hear how you dealt with it — or if this approach makes sense.
by Liftyee | 2025-06-05 21:31:16+00:00
Fun little parrot! And beats installing with snap (I don't like snap).

Out of curiosity, my rudimentary measurement puts bandwidth usage at about 17 KiB/s. Some might say that's negligible nowadays, which is not that unreasonable (1 hour ~ 61 MiB). Still, my efficiency brain is tingling. I guess simply displaying chars is lower risk than running code on your computer.
by throwup238 | 2025-06-05 21:31:28+00:00
It’s a local quirk of the Canadian fish industry more than anything. DFO uses the phrase in their fishery notices: https://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/en/node/2377

The history page of the local union, they use the phrase “fish harvesters” rather interchangeably with “fishermen”: https://ffaw.ca/about-us/history/
by rimunroe | 2025-06-05 21:31:38+00:00
CSS minifies quite poorly compared to JavaScript. JavaScript generally minifies quite well (I've seen savings as high as 85%). The minifier can mangle variable and function names as much as it wants with no effect on behavior as well as do automatic dead code elimination and constant expression evaluation. CSS does not compress nearly as easily because the minifier is much more limited in what it can compress (mostly formatting).
by zzo38computer | 2025-06-05 21:31:38+00:00
In my opinion, there are some problems with this, such as:

- The cryptographic hash is not included. (They do mention security, a hash and/or public keys would be helpful for security. It would also be helpful for identification if names are reused for unrelated reasons.)

- There is not a distinction between interfaces and implementations (which in some cases you might care about, although not always).

- They do not mention examples of what qualifiers are possible for some package types.
by pombreda | 2025-06-05 21:31:55+00:00
> isn't the issue that sometimes a given scanner can't know from where the package is sourced?

That's the problem: there is no metadata with or in libssl.so.1 that I can reliably use to tell what this is

Eventually I can see a solution made of

1. create the metadata, say a simple YAMl or deb822 key-valud pair file that can then be included upstream or as an overlay 2. define a simple spec for binary formats to include a PURL (say in an ELF section or a WinPE string or sorts, where many of these are already stored) 3. create content-based tools like we have in PurlDB to match code, but may be more like a bunch of generated yara rules that would match symbols and strings from source to binaries and can recognize that libssl.so.1 is from OpenSSL 1.1.1g.
by geuis | 2025-06-05 21:32:34+00:00
I dunno. It's definitely a concern in the community. But real people are still getting work.

Audible has ruined their catalog listings with their "Virtual voice" thing and no option to filter them out. They're mostly low quality books narrated by subpar AI voice that don't sell at all, while making it extremely difficult to find quality new books to listen to.
by vendiddy | 2025-06-05 21:32:47+00:00
I find o3 to be the clearest thinker as well.

If I'm working on a complex problem and want to go back and forth on software architecture, I like having o3 research prior art and have a back and forth on trade-offs.

If o3 was faster and cheaper I'd use it a lot more.

I'm curious what your workflows are !
by dpig_ | 2025-06-05 21:32:57+00:00
I don't know how a materialist could answer anything other than no - you are obliterated. And if, despite sharing every single one of your characteristics, that individual on the other side of the teleporter is not 'you' (since you died), then some aspect of what 'you' are must be the discrete episode of consciousness that you were experiencing up until that point.

Which also leads me to think that there's no real reason to believe that this discrete episode of consciousness would have been continuous since birth. For all we know, we may die little deaths every time we go to sleep, hit our heads or go under anesthesia.
by miki123211 | 2025-06-05 21:33:28+00:00
> Do ordinary people side load at all?

Yes, usually when somebody calls them, pretends to be from the security department of their bank, and asks them to install an app to "catch the hacker who just stole $2000 from your account in the act."

In countries where Android is popular (not the US), this is an extremely common scam vector.
by seadan83 | 2025-06-05 21:33:30+00:00
> If your AI scaling statement is accurate then the problem will eventually solve itself as organizations that mandated AI usage will start to fall behind their non-AI mandating peers.

All things being equal, I would agree. Things are not equal though. The slow down can manifest as: needing more developers for the same productivity, lots of new projects to do things like "break the AI monolith into microservices", all the things that a company needs to do when growing from 50 employees to 200 employees. Having a magicly different architecture is kinda just a different reality, too much chaos to always say that one approach would really be different. One thing though, it does often take 2 to 5 years before knowing whether the chosen approach was 'bad' or not (and why).

Companies that are trying to scale - almost no two are alike. So it'll be difficult to do a peer-to-peer comparison, it won't be apples to apples (and if so, the sample size is absurdly small). Did architecture kill a company, or bad team cohesion? Did good team cohesion save the company despite bad architecture? Did AI slop wind up slowing things down so much that the company couldn't grow revenue? Very hard to make peer-to-peer comparisons when the problem space is so complex and chaotic.

It's also amazing what people and companies can do with just sheer stubbornness. Facebook has over (I hear) 1000+ engineers just for their mobile app.

> My experience so far is that if you architect your systems properly AI continues to scale very well with code base size. It's worth noting that the architecture to support sustained AI velocity improvement may not be the architecture that some human architects have previously grown comfortable with as their optimal architecture for human productivity in their organization

I fear this is the start of a no-true-scotsman argument. That aside, what is the largest code base size you have reached so far? Would you mind providing some/any insight into the architecture differences for an AI-first codebase? Are there any articles or blog posts that I could read? I'm very interested to learn more where certain good architectures are not good for AI tooling.
by TimTheTinker | 2025-06-05 21:34:07+00:00
Yes, that absolutely jives with my sense. Targeting SMBs initially (since they'd have quantified cost savings involved), then expanding to home users in general after the product launches.

Ideally, an off-the-shelf machine (maybe from a few select hardware vendors/partners) with a very straightforward setup process, or an optional pre-installation.

I see data integrity as a key risk to address, though. Maybe something with a built-in Li-Ion battery (kept at 50% charge for longevity) that can keep running and safely shutdown in the event of a power blip, and an easy way to sync to rotating backups (i.e. plug in an external HDD once a week, or sync directly to another machine across the internet, no cloud in the middle). But IMO for most SMB-size work, RAIDs are overrated in the era of SSDs and modern filesystems.
by nradov | 2025-06-05 21:34:22+00:00
Dietary recommendations have fluctuated widely for decades, and still differ substantially between sources. So far there is zero direct evidence that meat consumption causes fatty liver disease; I mean it's possible but we just don't know one way or the other. The only real data we have comes from low-quality observational studies (basically junk science).

If someone wants to try limiting meat consumption as an "n=1" experiment to see how it affects their body composition and other biomarkers then go ahead. Just don't expect a major impact from that one factor.
by westurner | 2025-06-05 21:35:35+00:00
Matter protocol support would also be a useful feature.

Potential integration: Run HVAC fans and/or an attic fan and/or a crawlspace fan if indoor AQI is worse than outdoor AQI

This says that Air Quality Sensor support was added to matter protocol in 2023: https://csa-iot.org/newsroom/matter-1-2-arrives-with-nine-ne... :

> Air Quality Sensors – Supported sensors can capture and report on: PM1, PM2.5, PM10, CO2, NO2, VOC, CO, Ozone, Radon, and Formaldehyde. Furthermore, the addition of the Air Quality Cluster enables Matter devices to provide AQI information based on the device’s location

/? matter protocol Air Quality Cluster: https://www.google.com/search?q=matter+protocol+Air+Quality+...
by rimeice | 2025-06-05 21:36:00+00:00
I’m curious what you’re asking ChatGPT to get verbatim NYT articles in the response that you then want to delete? If ChatGPT has being doing this, the default is to keep every chat, so I doubt NYT lawyers need the small portion of deleted info to find evidence if it exists.

Ofcourse if OpenAI was scanning your chat history for verbatim NYT text and editing and deleting that would be another thing, but that itself would also get noticed.
by fakedang | 2025-06-05 21:37:41+00:00
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those anti-nuclear types. I'm just saying that the West has simply forgotten how to build nuclear powerplants without significant cost. It's so bad that when Abu Dhabi were choosing plant builders for their Barakah power plant, they chose KEPCO over every Western company. In fact, KEPCO won on all counts including timeline and cost efficiency. Their nearest competition was Chinese and Japanese, not even a single Western operator was close. Barakah is 5600 MW for 32 billion.

The Czech Republic has also recently selected KEPCO for building their new nuclear plant, 18 billion for 2000 MW.
by tunesmith | 2025-06-05 21:37:43+00:00
One of my favorite things to wonder about is if our historical tech tree has ever been truly limited by anything other than human ingenuity. Like, if not for the random placement of smart people in the right places, who's to say we might not have started launching rockets 500 years ago, or 500 years from now? And how disjoint can branches of a a tech tree really be; are there branches of our tree that could conceivably be completely dark ages and undiscovered given where we are in the other branches? But it's the first question that is most fun: have we ever been externally gated, like where a certain idea or technology was just completely impossible to invent discover until something external happened like a meteor hitting the ground, or a volcano erupting, etc?
by npteljes | 2025-06-05 21:37:57+00:00
>the battle for Linux as THE desktop OS was sabotaged by its most ardent practitioners.

Don't believe that for a second. Industry de-facto standards are a result of power dynamics, and the actual users of the thing wield orders of magnitude less power than they project. If a corporation like MS or Google wanted Linux desktop to happen, no amount of gatekeepers could actually hold the gates.

The reason why Windows is the de-facto standard is because Microsoft put a lot of behind-the-scenes work into making it a de-facto standard. I am meaning them sabotaging everything else, treating the status quo with the famous EEE, many business deals with governments to use it, put it in school curricula, having manufacturers preinstall it to PCs, and bend every piece of connected tech to Windows' direction - hardware drivers, computer games, specialty software, even the internet.

That is how Windows got its desktop users, and how Linux and others didn't really.
by throw2342412314 | 2025-06-05 21:38:09+00:00
From a fresh session:

initial prompt: Start a new typescript file. It will be used for data science purposes

second prompt: Implement that "that thing that groups data points into similar groups"

The output was a full function implementing K-means (along with a Euclidean distance function).

https://chatgpt.com/share/68420bd4-113c-8006-a7fe-c2d0c9f91d...
by mekoka | 2025-06-05 21:38:13+00:00
You may just be trying to disagree with the author for sport.

> we carry around only...

Not true. We can carry resistance to some ancestral pressure which isn't part of the current environment.

> sooner or later...

Yes, sooner when it's costly, later when it's less so, through normal evolutionary pressure (entropy and all).

The point is, most species at time T do carry traits that aren't that useful to them anymore. The costlier ones yield enough negative fitness points in evolutionary game theory to rid the gene pool of them quicker. It brings us right back to the author's original argument.
by genewitch | 2025-06-05 21:38:52+00:00
> PK Dick wrote "The man in the high castle" by extensively using the I Ching, but if I use it and recreate the novel by complete accident I would still be infringing.

I touched on this, with the comment that we love "first to market." That multiple people coming up with the same output may mean that the idea isn't that novel. whether that matters or not isn't really relevant to me.

The part you quoted was just a thought experiment to explain why i compared it to a "clean room implementation" - note it also avoids this argument from a sibling comment:

>need to show that the AI hadn't seen anything derived from that copyrighted work

since there could not possibly be any derived work prior to the "original" work being published. For the sake of argument.
by Merovius | 2025-06-05 21:39:52+00:00
It doesn't really contradict the survey all that much. 13% of respondents said that error handling is the biggest issue. That leaves 87%, which can rank anywhere from "it's an issue, but not the biggest" through "it's a minor nuisance" through "I don't care" up to "I actively like the status quo". We can only guess about the distribution.

And yes, I agree that the survey is a better source of data, generally. But I will also say that it intentionally asks as broad a definition of "Go user" as possible. Meaning it also (intentionally) asks people who might use Go every once in a while at work. And a good chunk of respondents are newcomers. These groups are more likely to identify this as a problem. While people who are active on GitHub tend to bias towards people who use it as a daily driver and are much more used to its idioms.

The data is mixed. I fully acknowledge that. But anecdotally, there seems to be a pretty clear pattern that people who come new to the language complain about this, but then get used to it and at the point where they become active in the community, they prefer the status quo. I don't think the experience of newcomers should be dismissed, but I also think it should be acknowledged that it's something most people get used to.
by thesz | 2025-06-05 21:39:52+00:00
As most languages allow expressions of algorithms, they are all Turing complete and, thus, are not fundamentally different. The complexity of expressions of some concepts is different, though.

My favorite thing is a "square." I put that name to an enumeration that allows me to compare and contrast things with two different qualities expressed by two extremes.

One such square is "One can (not) do (not do) something." Both "not"'s can be present and absent, just like a truth table.

"One can do something", "one can not do something", "one can do not do something" and, finally, "one can not help but do something."

Why should we use "help but" instead of "do not"?

While this does not preclude one from enumerating possibilities thinking in English, it makes that enumeration harder than it can be in other languages. For example, in Russian the "square" is expressible directly.

Also, "help but" is not shorter than "do not," it is longer. Useful idioms usually expressed in shorter forms, thus, apparently, "one can not help but do something" is considered by Englishmen as not useful.
by 256dpi | 2025-06-05 21:39:55+00:00
Thanks! The SCD30 is a great sensor and obviously better than the SCD41. But we did not look at it in more detail, as we chose the SCD41 primarily for its small size. We believe that an accuracy of +/-50ppm is enough for a device like the Air Lab. Also, we'll actively look into reminding the user to take the device outside if automatic calibration is used. On top of that, it's our plan to either factory calibrate the devices and/or offer manual recalibration that should extend beyond the 1-week interval with automatic calibration.
by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t | 2025-06-05 21:40:27+00:00
> Local network devices are protected from random websites by CORS

C'mon. We all know that 99% of the time, Access-Control-Allow-Origin is set to * and not to the specific IP of the web service.

Also, CORS is not in the control of the user while the proposal is. And that's a huge difference.
by sfRattan | 2025-06-05 21:40:59+00:00
Unfortunately, Google's Pixel devices have been the only ones with hardware that meets all of the project's stringent security requirements, including a secure hardware enclave and multiyear commitments from the vendor to firmware security updates (I think 7 years of updates now for the newest Pixels). Those seem to be the big two things that no other Android vendor achieves together.

The GrapheneOS devs are serious about security, probably more focused on it than 99% of end users. That they manage to release a project with the high level of usability that GrapheneOS achieves is impressive, even if it isn't as convenient to the end user as stock Android. Ultimately, nothing will ever be as convenient to the end user as stock Android or iOS, but that's not the point of the project.
by nobody9999 | 2025-06-05 21:41:12+00:00
>At Google's scale, what would be the hosting costs of this I wonder. Very expensive after a certain point, I would guess.

Which would be chump change[0] compared to the costs of an actual trial with multiple lawyers/law firms, expert witnesses and the infrastructure to support the legal team before, during and after trial.

[0] https://grammarist.com/idiom/chump-change/
by diggan | 2025-06-05 21:41:52+00:00
> Chantrelles have a symbiotic relationship with Douglas Fir trees, so you're only going to find them around Douglas firs

I'm not sure that's true, I know that we had Cantharellus cibarius ("golden chanterelle") growing up everywhere in the woods, but I don't think the Douglas fir even exists there, never heard that name before. The forest was mostly oak I think.
by Retric | 2025-06-05 21:43:00+00:00
It’s not some binary thing but degrees of adaptation.

People can handle significantly more of a wide range of plant toxins like theobromine and caffeine (both found in chocolate) which harm more pure predators like dogs in very low doses, but where rare for out imitate ancestors.

Cattle, deer etc however can handle many of those at much higher doses.
by cjbgkagh | 2025-06-05 21:43:52+00:00
>> Your approach assumes that the distribution of those SNPs at the population level is immaterial.

No it doesn't.

>> What makes an allele attractive at one frequency can expose new liabilities at a different frequency.

So there is this thing called statistics...

There is a false assumption in behavioral genetics that behavior and intelligence are weakly linked to 1000s of SNPs which would make it rather difficult to stay within normal bounds, but in reality there are a few rare SNPs that dominates high intelligence. The RCCX genes of TNXB, CYP21A2, and C4 being the strongest. Of these I would focus on only two TNXB SNPs and there are many people walking around today who have them.