MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by oblio | 2025-06-05 16:06:39+00:00
In my experience square is better. Most stuff you will carry will just fit better, I say this as someone who puts a lot of random stuff in there.

And for when I want to carry weirder stuff I fold the backseats. I've carried entire Ikea wardrobes like this.

And the point remains, Tesla learns harder into the deception and lying.
by sneilan1 | 2025-06-05 16:07:22+00:00
It's not developer's common interest to develop local services first. People build cloud services for a profit so they can be paid. However, sometimes developers need to build their portfolios (or out of pure interest) so they make software that runs locally anyway. A lot of websites can easily be ran on people's computers from a data perspective but it's a lot of work to get that data in the first place and make it useable. I don't think people are truly "cloud-addicted". I think they simply do not have other choices.
by seabird | 2025-06-05 16:07:22+00:00
The Patriot failures were the result of floating point error. Ada provides facilities specifically to deal with this, while you're left rolling your own in C/C++. Of course Ada won't save you from human bugs, but it's silly to say that you're no better off with a language giving you everything it can to avoid them than one that is a notorious fuckup dispenser.
by londons_explore | 2025-06-05 16:08:44+00:00
It can be done with Merkel trees. You just ship the root hash.

Merkel trees are snapshot/read only though - so you then use a bitcoin style Blockchain to ship refreshed versions of the root tree hash (you can even ship it in the actual bitcoin Blockchain if you like, piggybacking on its proof of work to ensure different people don't see different root hashes)
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-06-05 16:09:41+00:00
Yeah, when I read the comment about calories I thought "This is a prime example when engineers only think about numbers and completely miss the forest for the trees (err, mushrooms)"

Also, for many mushrooms, the risk of consuming a toxic variety is extremely low if you know what you're doing. People love to bring up examples of "But the head of the Mycological Society of XYZ died of misidentified mushrooms!!", but a while back I dug into those examples and found 0 evidence for any of them - they're just popular Internet old wives' tales that people love to regurgitate.
by anguyen8 | 2025-06-05 16:09:46+00:00
Hello 0xab,

Sorry that we missed your work. There are a lot of works in this area both textual and visual, especially social biases.

We wish to mention all but the space is limited so one can often discuss the most relevant ones. We'll consider discussing yours in our next revision.

Genuine question: Would you categorize the type of bias in our work "social"?
by righthand | 2025-06-05 16:10:00+00:00
And when all the hate speech proponents flood the platform with bots? What happens when pushing down is not enough because there is too much? What happens when there are so many new accounts posting hate speech you can’t block them either. Free speech and word detection algorithms are not good moderation they are lazy moderation that refuses to address the problem most people have with Twitter.

Twitter is not the US and does not guarantee free speech. To insist that it must because it’s a US company is entirely missing the point. Banning people is essentially ignoring people. Which is what the text of “sticks and stones” is instructing.
by jorge_cab | 2025-06-05 16:10:23+00:00
I don't think it should be the role of developers to write "good prompts" I think ideally an intermediate layer should optimize the information passed to an LLM.

Like what Agentic IDEs are starting to do. I don't copy paste code in the correct way to optimize my prompt, I select the code I want, with MCPs picking up you might not even have to paste input/output the Agent can run it and parse it into the LLM in an optimal way.

Of course, the quality of your instructions matter but I think that falls outside of "prompt engineering"
by kees99 | 2025-06-05 16:10:43+00:00
Gold-plating of contact surface of electric connectors is indeed genuinely useful, on account of preventing contact oxidation.

Assuming good contact in connector(s) is achieved, gold-plating does not further help with high-speed signals. What matters here - is wire/cable itself, specifically, tight control over where conductors are relative to each other and insulation, so that impedance is well matched throughout, cross-talk is minimized, etc, etc...
by miki123211 | 2025-06-05 16:11:03+00:00
I think the core insight of this article, and it's something I haven't thought about before in this way, is that any successful programming language needs to "market itself" to LLMs and LLM developers.

We had the "first wave" of languages that were marketed to decision makers (Java), the second wave that was marketed to developers (Ruby on Rails, Rust), I think a third wave is coming, where the language will be designed to be LLM friendly from the ground up.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-06-05 16:11:43+00:00
I am by no means a bluesky person. I hate Twitter and all its clone sites, because I think they're tearing apart the social fabric by training people to interact in bite-sized hot takes in a cycle of outrage. I will still call it Twitter until the end of time, because I refuse to respect corporate rebrands. Whether it's Twitter, Facebook, Comcast, or anything else, I'm not going to play along with their silly name games.
by Veserv | 2025-06-05 16:11:44+00:00
Worse than that [1].

> asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla

You had to agree to let Tesla use any of your patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and all other forms of intellectual property. In return Tesla lets you use just their patents.

Yes, it is actually explicitly that blatantly unfair.

[1] https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled...
by satvikpendem | 2025-06-05 16:12:28+00:00
> "Experimenting" with no-build web apps makes it sound like web apps require build steps by default. The opposite is true.

It's not that it's required per se, just that when it seems like most people use applications with a build step, experimenting is the right word to use when going the other way, even if it is the default. It might even be the case that the author hasn't made apps without a build step so again in their case, they indeed are experimenting with it, even if to others it doesn't seem like an experiment. In any case, as with any experiment, they are learning something new.
by jimrandomh | 2025-06-05 16:13:47+00:00
I tried Cursor, and will occasionally switch into it, but I'm having a hard time using it because its relationship to extensions (particularly extensions that the user develops and sideloads) is badly broken. I tried doing minor customization (forking the vim plugin from the github version, creating a vscode hello-world-style plugin), and while everything worked in VsCode, transferring those plugins into Cursor did not. There was no documentation for plugins in Cursor, you just had to hope that things were similar-enough to VsCode. And then they failed to load with no debugging leads.

I think this is an artifact of Cursor being a closed-source fork of an open-source project, with a plugin architecture that's heavily reliant on the IDE at least being source-available. And, frankly, taking an open-source project like VsCode and commercializing it without even making it source-available is a dishonorable thing to do, and I'm rooting against them.
by mandevil | 2025-06-05 16:13:56+00:00
ISS is in a bad orbit for this sort of thing: halfway between the best orbit for Baikonur and the best orbit for Kennedy, it was a compromise which was okay because it wasn't getting that much traffic, so the penalty didn't amount to much at the scale of the budget. Using it as an orbital way-station will end up paying that compromise penalty a whole lot of times on all the launches up to the station, driving up the total value of the orbital penalty. If you are doing something big enough in space that you can afford to keep the ISS in operation (1) then you are probably better off building your own platform in the right orbit for your launch site. (2)

Also, repeated dockings and undockings (as you assemble the mass driver and then use it) will ruin any microgravity experiments you might want to run, so you can't really combine "base station for deep space exploration" and "science lab" missions, you really need the station to be focused on one or the other.

1: The main problem ISS has is political, not technological. By design you need the US and Russia to cooperate to keep it operating, and that made a lot of sense in the 1990s, and has fallen apart over the past decade.

2: Orbital plane changes- to move ISS to the right orbit for a specific launch site- are hideously expensive in LEO. GEO satellites often find it cheaper to raise their apogee out to near the moon, make the necessary plane change way up high, and then drop the apogee again when they get to perigee, rather than make the plane changes in LEO. (ISS can't do that.)
by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 | 2025-06-05 16:14:43+00:00
> The idea of building/compiling in web development is (and has always been) totally alien. HTML, CSS, JavaScript.

Then you may be serving your users broken implementations or you may be spending way too much time handling progressive enhancement. If not, congratulations on mastering every edge case.

The rest of us use polyfills, linting, transpilation, treeshaking, and other alien tool chains to help us out.

The last 12 years of browser development (and the people who make said tools, so things get adopted quicker) are to thank for letting you do more things with less tools today.
by philipkglass | 2025-06-05 16:14:52+00:00
The system prompt currently includes language like "Claude does not provide information that could be used to make chemical or biological or nuclear weapons." [1]

If you're working at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Anthropic knows you're working at LANL, refusing to deal with nuclear weapons is trying to close the barn door 80 years after the horse left.

I recently obtained some older shock physics code from Sandia National Laboratories. This is the sort of thing that is useful for numerical modeling of explosive implosion of nuclear weapons cores (among many other things). It was written in old Fortran. I asked Claude to update it to Fortran 95. It seemed to go well for a while, then I stepped away to get a cup of coffee. When I came back it wasn't done. The whole chat had just gone away (it was still listed in my chats, but the actual contents had vanished). I don't know if this was just a bug, since it is by far the largest single-shot task I have ever given to an LLM, or if it finally reached the section about high explosive equations of state and decided it was too dangerous.

[1] https://docs.anthropic.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts#m...
by morkalork | 2025-06-05 16:15:00+00:00
If you wanted to go all in, you'd want a language that is denser so you get more efficiency out of tokens. Since it's being used by LLMs, readability by humans can take a back seat. Obviously the answer is: Perl.

But seriously though, a high-level language designed for LLMs would be interesting, maybe with a translation layer to something more developer friendly on top.
by david-gpu | 2025-06-05 16:15:19+00:00
> 787 MAX

You are thinking of the 737 MAX [0]. There is no such thing as a 787 MAX yet [1].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
by insane_dreamer | 2025-06-05 16:15:44+00:00
The bias towards frameworks and languages for which there is most abundant code is not only real, but self-reinforcing. As "vibe coding" (I hate that term) devs crank out AI-generated code and make it available to be trained on, LLMs will see more of that code and therefore be more likely to recommend those same code pathways.

This also makes it much more difficult for new, better, and innovative ideas to break through the noise floor.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-05 16:16:17+00:00
Those grievances are justified, but they aren't grievances held by the right. If they actually feel these things, they sure aren't voting to change them, in fact quite the opposite. As you pointed out, they are rallying around people who openly are trying to make all those problems worse.

OP (toomanyrichies)'s comment makes much more sense. The right's grievances aren't against elites, the wealthy, the privileged, employers, or the pace of change. Their grievances are against less powerful outgroups who serve as scapegoats that can't fight back: Immigrants, minorities, gay and trans people, "woke" culture warriors, the poor, and so on. The government is seen as a tool for punching down and exacting cruelty onto these outgroups. That's what really motivates them.

I live in a "red" part of the country, surrounded by Trump flags. Ask them what good their team has done for their own lives, and if you get past the canned talking points that don't make sense, they'll admit their lives aren't really much better than they were in 2016. Ask them what they like about MAGA, and it will be all about the attacking and cruelty he's doing to their perceived enemies.
by twobitshifter | 2025-06-05 16:16:39+00:00
I’d suggest reading it through when you have the time. This piece is a profile on Yarvin and doesn’t attack his thinking directly, other than pointing out inconsistencies and the occasional counter-example.

In the profile you’ll learn that Yarvin frequently uses the N-word, that he identifies the need for improved means of genocide, and that JD Vance literally embraced him with the exclamation “you reactionary fascist!”

What you should take away from this is that there are people closely associated with the current government whose goal is to find ways to upend the perceived ‘Cathedral’ of liberal thought through fascist means and eliminate democracy.

Whether or not a benevolent king is the best _theoretical_ model of government is really not relevant unless you are the type who thinks _actually_ replacing the democratic system with monarchy is worth another try.
by munificent | 2025-06-05 16:17:15+00:00
> I don’t think it goes as high as art and music which is literally up to like virtuoso, unattainable levels

There is a very old, very relevant observation that when men do something we call it "art" and when women do it we call it "craft".

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare a performative art like playing an instrument to a constructive art like knitting because the skillsets are so different. It's like trying to decide if ice cream is better than stand up comedy.

But I do think you can reasonably compare constructive arts like painting and knitting. For those, there are two aspects: coming up with the design for what you want to make, and implementing that design. Historically, the latter was given more weight than the former. The most famous painters of the Renaissance mostly just painted pictures of normal people, but it was the execution of those paintings that made them famous. Today, thanks to the invention of reproductive technology like cameras, we mostly prize originally of thought over execution. Andy Warhol is not a particularly skilled painter. (One way to think of the modern conception of "high art" versus "low art"—think Damien Hirst versus Thomas Kinkade—is exactly the distinction between concept and execution.)

Given all that, I would the best knitting designers on the same level as the best furniture designers or portrait painters. Most knitting is deliberately not conceptual, so it's hard to compare it to explicitly conceptual art. But if you think anything can reasonably be called art when it is mostly focused on quality and difficulty of execution, then knitting is an art with a ceiling as high as any other.

And, to be clear, there are fine artists whose medium is textiles as well. For example: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-10-textile-art...

How you feel about those probably reflects mostly how you feel about much of modern art. But I don't see any reason it should be considered a lower rung of art than other sculpture media just because it uses fibers and not metal or glass.
by nradov | 2025-06-05 16:17:15+00:00
That's not how valuations work. P/E ratio is just one factor, and a minor one at that for growth stocks. It's possible that Tesla will underperform the market but you could say the same about any volatile stock.

Your claim about writing off the unsold inventory is just silly, and displays a stunning ignorance of the basics of corporate income tax law and accounting. The vehicles will eventually be sold, perhaps at a deeply discounted price. They won't be just tossed in a landfill or something.

Marking down assets has zero impact on cash or cash flow so your comment about that makes no sense at all. The main shareholders are sophisticated institutional investors who aren't fooled by simplistic financial engineering tricks.
by cloverich | 2025-06-05 16:17:22+00:00
I actually love that this was glossed over by him and most of the comments. I used Apple notes daily for years - hundreds or maybe thousand+ notes in it. The idea that markdown is easy to mess up compared to Apple notes is at best partially true. Apple notes messes up too, and in weird ways. The reality is if not markdown, its using its own syntax under the hood that is certainly not bug free, and will have its own (proprietary) bugs to deal with. And since its not markdown, you can't drop to raw text to fix it, or even understand it. Which is the whole reason more and more apps are moving towards it: You don't need to re-invent the wheel for all the standard note features, including your own special flavor of bugs. Apple notes realistically can't use Markdown in its UI. But if it could, having a toggle to flip to it would be lovely, especially when their UI gets buggy - there's always a plain text work around that's easy to understand, and fully human readable on its own.
Ask HN: Where do you go for cutting-edge dev news and info?
by TimTheTinker | 2025-06-05 16:18:36+00:00
Between roughly 2002 and 2017 certain blogs, websites, and publishers were constantly on the cutting edge: Ajaxian, Jesse James Garett, Dion Almaer, Douglas Crockford, PragProg, Martin Fowler, Dave Thomas, DHH, Andy Hunt, John Resig, 37signals, etc.

These days, HN itself is decent enough, but the majority of posts aren't about cutting-edge software development.

Where do you go these days for cutting-edge news and info focused on the vanguard of software development?
by NoPicklez | 2025-06-05 16:19:00+00:00
All cars have pain points and whilst people in an existing Model 3 might be annoyed ride quality has been improved in the new model, it is good that the specific pain point has been addressed. Afterall you wouldn't stop improving your car simply because you didn't want to annoy existing customers.

Either way, in prior comments you couldn't come to terms with them possibly fixing something like that in the first place.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-06-05 16:19:08+00:00
Where are you getting your data? Is this a specific country/worldwide/what? If you're just talking about the US, a quick Google search shows your numbers are off by a few orders of magnitude. This article from the CDC estimated 100 hospitalizations for mushrooms in the US in 2016: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010a1.htm

Foraging for mushrooms is not dangerous if you know what you're doing and stick to easily identified mushrooms that aren't easily confused with poisonous varieties.
by qualeed | 2025-06-05 16:19:22+00:00
1) That was not "trivial", by any stretch of the definition. It was a 3-year long campaign by a (suspected to be) nation-state (or similarly resourced) actor! I don't think you can get any farther away from "trivial" if you tried.

2) From your link, it says: "Ubuntu 24.04LTS was a month away from being shipped with this backdoor, with other distros being on the same boat. Maybe the best way to describe it is this: had it gone undetected, Linux servers would have been running with a bomb waiting to be activated remotely." and "Luckily this backdoor was discovered in an early stage, and most of the Linux user community stays safe"

So, the security community _did_ notice.
by cannonpr | 2025-06-05 16:19:28+00:00
I often find my self conflicted over Gattaca, because I much prefer Ian banks vision of the future, “beauty and intelligence should be a basic human right through technology” yet Gattacas dystopian vision is much more likely what we are going to get thanks to capitalism. Also with imperfect technology, options like these will also do a lot of damage to human genetic variability, till some fun pathogen comes and has words with us over the matter.
by mindslight | 2025-06-05 16:19:33+00:00
I always forget the levels, and I couldn't tell from a quick reading how much time L3 gave you. So sure, "several seconds" isn't deep in "surprise, you should have been driving" territory, but it's still on the order of a developing situation which a computer could get into and then balk and demand the human get themselves out of.

That amount of time is also nowhere near enough for a human to switch tasks like that. I would say it should be at least a minute or two, and even that is pushing it with how people are bound to use the system (spacing out while watching a TV show, etc).
by naikrovek | 2025-06-05 16:19:36+00:00
good luck with that; interpretation make things like this very difficult, if not impossible.

I agree that this would be nice, however. as a non-lawyer and someone who considers themself to be not a "real" developer (even though I write software every day) I have often wondered how alike law and code are, really, when it comes to defining intent via a keyboard.
by careful_ai | 2025-06-05 16:20:10+00:00
This post is a brilliant example of why human intuition still dominates when navigating ambiguity and crafting clever systems-level solutions. The XOR accumulator idea was smart—LLMs can help validate or iterate on such thoughts, but rarely originate them.

In my experience working on enterprise app modernization, we’ve found success by keeping humans firmly in the loop. Tools like Project Analyzer (from Techolution’s AppMod.AI suite) assist engineers in identifying risky legacy code, mapping dependencies, and prioritizing refactors. But the judgment calls, architecture tweaks, and creative problem-solving? Still very much a human job.

LLMs boost productivity, but it’s the developer's thinking that makes the outcome truly resilient. This story captures that balance perfectly.