MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Jtsummers | 2025-06-03 15:52:13+00:00
> Additionally it requires someone to meticulously compare the mathematical model with the implementation code, to validate that what is written actually maps to what was designed.

This is a deficiency in TLA+ (and many other systems), but it's not a good enough reason to discard or dismiss it. The industry alternative to TLA+ is not something that traces fully and easily from spec to code, but mostly to use informal, largely prose, documents as their specification (if they specify anything at all). TLA+ is a massive improvement on that even if it's not a perfect tool. Same for Alloy and other systems. It's better if people model and specify at least portions of their system formally even if it still takes effort to verify the code correctly implements that specification, effort they have to expend anyways but with greater difficulty lacking any thing approaching a formal specification.
by avemuri | 2025-06-03 15:52:22+00:00
No I'm talking about my own skills. How I onboard, structure 1on1s, run meetings, create and reuse certain processes, manage documentation (a form of org memory), check in on status, devise metrics and other indicators of system health. All of these compound and provide leverage even if the person leaves and a new one enters.the 30th person I onboarded and managed was orders of magnitude easier (for both of us) than the first.

With LLMs the better I get at the scaffolding and prompting, the less it feels like catherding (so far at least). Hence the comparison.
by jhbadger | 2025-06-03 15:52:44+00:00
A lot of physical "property rights" are equally dubious though and probably shouldn't have the reverence people have for them. The reason why land ownership reform (splitting up of big land holdings owned by the wealthy but farmed by the poor) was a big issue in 19th century Britain (and Ireland which was completely part of it then) and still is an issue in the developing world today, is ultimately it is arbitrary that somebody gets to "own" land just because they are descended from aristocrats who conquered it centuries ago.
by TriangleEdge | 2025-06-03 15:53:03+00:00
Nintendo is going to be getting 80$ from me, that's for sure. Mario games are most of the funnest games I've played. I've been playing Mario Kart since the n64, and I've liked every version since. I have high hopes.

As Peter Thiel said: if you double your price and don't lose half your customers, you're making profit.
by Nullabillity | 2025-06-03 15:53:04+00:00
> by 2030, AI will be running almost entirely on solar+wind+battery

Bullshit.

Even if this was true (and so far that doesn't seem to be the case), that's not how commodities work.

You can't just measure how much your thing uses, because even if it was running purely on green energy you also have to keep in mind other consumers that end up displaced onto worse sources. The only fair way to measure this is by the worst generator on your grid, because that's who would be shut down w/o your demand.

And even if we assume that the entire grid was green, building out that capacity also has (environmental) costs! As does producing those GPUs, for that matter.
by pkulak | 2025-06-03 15:53:28+00:00
OP mentioned Uber's motivations, and you countered with workers' motivations.

Even admitting that, I'd be willing to bet that essentially no single Uber employee is working that job out of care for environment, or interest in having a healthy transportation system in their city. I know for a fact that's a consideration for many people who work for city transit agencies.
by asveikau | 2025-06-03 15:53:47+00:00
There are all sorts of stereotypes about frugal students which have truth, but simultaneously, the education market is in some respects a cash cow. Look at tuition costs, or the cost of textbooks. If they're already spending a lot of largely loaned money for education, I guess charging students and having them think it's an education tool gets them some revenue.
by Prove_Richard | 2025-06-03 15:54:18+00:00
ProveAI | Full Stack Developers (5+ years) & Senior Full Stack Developers (8+ years) | Full time | Remote | Ideally in locations such as US, South America, Europe and UK

Prove AI is an AI management platform that helps organizations centralize and manage their AI models while maintaining strict oversight of data access and usage. Built on distributed ledger technology, Prove AI provides tamper-proof oversight, ensuring organizations can set and enforce guardrails to mitigate risk and optimize AI performance.

We recently received 27.7 million USD investment and are currently growing our engineering team

Tech Stack: Type/Java, React, Node.js, Python Roles: https://proveai.careers.hibob.com/jobs/86854376-7235-4c8b-a0... Contact: Richard - TA Manager - Richard@proveai.com
by MattPalmer1086 | 2025-06-03 15:54:51+00:00
Huh, in my workplace we use a lot of contractors and also use consultancies. They serve different purposes, for us at least.

The contractor market is hardly dead as a result of IR35 - even though it is a huge pain in the ass for everyone.

I never said that running a legitimate business is a tax avoidance scheme. But I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of contractors I know whose legitimate businesses pay employers national insurance (if outside IR35). From HMRC's perspective, that is a gap they would like to close.

Anyway, good to hear different perspectives - we aren't going to agree, but I enjoyed discussing it with you.
by saigovardhan | 2025-06-03 15:54:54+00:00
TLA+ has shown good promise in verifying cache-coherence protocols in multicore systems (a good alternative to CMurphi). An intern an Microsoft one helped uncover a bug in the Xbox 360, right before its 2004 launch - by formally verifying the protocol.

A few serious RISC-V startups use it today as well..
by int_19h | 2025-06-03 15:54:55+00:00
I don't see how you'd avoid using chat if you need the bot to work on some bug end-to-end. I usually have many rounds in a chat session, first asking it to identify the overall approach, reviewing and approving that, then one or more rounds for coding, and several more to request edits as needed.

If you only ever ask it for trivial changes that don't require past context to make sense, then chat is indeed overkill. But we already have different UX approaches for that - e.g. some IDEs watch for specially formatted comments to trigger code generation, so you literally just type what you want right there in the editor, exactly where you want the code to go.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-06-03 15:54:58+00:00
>GUIs are built at least 2.5 times

Unfortunately what is more often needed is 3.0+ and far too many fall short :\

>"good UI" = "good page formatting" + "pretty UI elements".

Nice to have, icing on the cake, but what I need if it was to be mission-critical is at least 10x better workflow than average these days.

As a child, before I had any concept of software, I just wanted to get something worthwhile out of electronics itself.

I'm so old that most adults didn't have a concept of software either in those days. "Software awareness", that it even exists as an entity of its own has by now proliferated by many orders of magnitude like most other things do not.

One thing that's stood the test of time, if you can make the electronics do something it wasn't doing before, well that might just be remarkable. Maybe even game-changing. Maybe even like never before.

Sometimes you program, sometimes you don't.

In the right balance it can end up quite a system.

Decades ago for my own purposes I separated the UI from the rest of the code, and this was of course a monolith with line numbers. The equivalent of punch cards, but when you think about it the UI could be in the final 25% of the deck of cards, and quite easily physically replaceable in that media form factor. Plus, if you're transparent about it, it can really come in handy sometimes to deal from the bottom on the deck. GOTO can easily be your friend if you know how to accommodate each other ;)

But code also doesn't necessarily have to have any electronics involved.

Software alone can be considered more independent of constraint by a "system", because it can be so abstract.

Doesn't have to be so abstract, but that is a serious option sometimes.

The ultimate would be pure software which is not part of any other "system" at all.

I'm so out-of-date I'll probably just stick with the electronics ;)

>Any thoughts on this approach?

Sorry, my head's a blank ;)
by rybosome | 2025-06-03 15:55:02+00:00
Yeah, very much agreed that in the spirit of good discussion I should’ve at least asked about their experiences and use case before jumping to finger wagging.

But that said, let me reiterate a couple important points from my post:

> With no disrespect meant

I’m not calling anybody an idiot because they aren’t using an LLM. I’m sharing my honest opinion that they’re not using it correctly, but that’s very different than calling them an idiot.

> if you’re unable to find utility in these tools

This is a bit lawyerly, but note my carefully generic wording here: “find utility”. If you’re a Rust developer who doesn’t like the Rust output from your LLM, sure - but that’s not 100% of the job.

You’ll also touch bash scripts, make files, YAML, JSON or TOML config, write bug reports/feature requests, discuss architectural ideas and coding patterns, look through stack traces/dumps/error logs, or whatever else.

My point is that it is exceedingly unlikely that there is nothing an LLM can do to help your work, even if it’s not good at writing code in your domain.

Hence the statement that if you cannot find utility, you’re not using it correctly. It takes time to learn how to use these tools effectively, even in domains they excel in.
by lpasselin | 2025-06-03 15:55:25+00:00
Hey, I read the paper in detail and presented to colleagues during our reading group.

I still do not understand exactly where D1L comes from in LGan(D1L, T(A1(u)). Is D1L simply A1(u)?

I also find that mixing notation in figure 2 and 3 makes it tricky.

Would have loved to have more insights from the results in the tables.

And more results from inversion, on more than Enron dataset. Since that is one end goals, even if reusing another method.

Thank you for the paper, very interesting!
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-03 15:55:58+00:00
I'm not evaluating it in a vacuum.

> You really should read the papers and reporting coming out about the sheer cost of these AI models and their operation.

Unless I've missed something big, they're still showing what I said.

Obviously, AI has its cost. And it's going to be big, because the whole world is using it, and trying to develop better models.

> those humans provide knock-on impacts that can decrease their environmental impact (especially if done in concert)

Can you name three? As far as I know, humans are energy intensive and strongly carbon-negative in general - and there's only so much they can do to decrease it; otherwise we wouldn't be facing a climate crisis.

> the current crop of AI is content burning NatGas turbines

That's a misleading statement, not an argument. AI is powered by electricity, not natural gas. Electricity is fungible, and how it's generated is not relevant to to how it's used. Even if you can point at a data center that gets power directly and exclusively from a fossil fuel generator, the problem has nothing to do with AI, and the solution is not "less AI", but "power the data center from renewables or nuclear instead".

> I don’t see the value-add of these models deployed at scale, especially when their marketing continues focusing on synthetic benchmarks and lofty future-hype instead of immediately practicable applications (like this one was)

That's the crux of the issue. You don't see the value-add. I respectfully suggest to stop looking at benchmarks, to stop reading marketing materials and taking it seriously (always a good idea, regardless of the topic), to stop listening to linkedin "thought leaders". Instead, just look at it. Try using it, see how others are using it.

The value-add is real, substantial, and blindingly obvious. To me, it's one of the best uses of electricity today, in terms of value-add per kilowatt hour.
by bee_rider | 2025-06-03 15:56:35+00:00
It is actually kind of surprising to me that the convention of dropping prices after a couple years has persisted in games. I mean, it made sense in like 2005. Back then, an older game looked much worse and every game was bumping up against the limits of what was possible on the hardware/in the engine.

Nowadays a game from 4 years ago looks ~about the same as a current one, might have the same gameplay, and doesn’t suffer as much from the constant progress in monetization strategies. Plus you know if a community will grow around it. And, relatedly, mod support has developed if it ever will.

The only reason to play a game that just came out is if you are into a specific pseudo-competitive scene; the “recently released matchmaking game” genre (and, it should also be noted that this isn’t the real pro-competitive scene, that’s MOBAs and Counterstrike).
by sreekanth850 | 2025-06-03 15:56:51+00:00
None of them caused any casualities or any damage to infrastructure. As we have multi layered defense system with L70 and Zu23 for very short range Defense agains drones and UAV, Spyder for Short Range, Akash for Medium range, s400 for Long range and high value target, exact kill rate of Guns are unknown. In press briefing, officials said that these were so effective against drones.
by kentonv | 2025-06-03 15:56:56+00:00
I find reviewing AI code less mentally tiring that reviewing human code.

This was a surprise to me! Until I tried it, I dreaded the idea.

I think it is because of the shorter feedback loop. I look at what the AI writes as it is writing it, and can ask for changes which it applies immediately. Reviewing human code typically has hours or days of round-trip time.

Also with the AI code I can just take over if it's not doing the right thing. Humans don't like it when I start pushing commits directly to their PR.

There's also the fact that the AI I'm prompting is, obviously, working on my priorities, whereas humans are often working on other priorities, but I can't just decline to review someone's code because it's not what I'm personally interested in at that moment.

When things go well, reviewing the AI's work is less draining than writing it myself, because it's basically doing the busy work while I'm still in control of high-level direction and architecture. I like that. But things don't always go well. Sometimes the AI goes in totally the wrong direction, and I have to prompt it too many times to do what I want, in which case it's not saving me time. But again, I can always just cancel the session and start doing it myself... humans don't like it when I tell them to drop a PR and let me do it.

Personally, I don't generally get excited about mentoring and collaborating. I wish I did, and I recognize it's an important part of my job which I have to do either way, but I just don't. I get excited primarily about ideas and architecture and not so much about people.
by ordinaryradical | 2025-06-03 15:57:04+00:00
The “thinking that precedes the writing” is not where the gold is. That kind of thinking is often confused, internally inconsistent, liable to miss critical details or nuance, and full of deductive leaps which may or may not pan out. Writing demands rigor of thought, it forces us to question premises, find evidence for a point of view, discern between the hypothetical and the factual, and try to organize these such that they cohere.

The thinking _is_ the writing. To be able to write is to be able to think, and if you are surrendering the writing to a machine that’s not ultimately what you’re surrendering—you’re giving up independent thought itself.
by nasalgoat | 2025-06-03 15:57:08+00:00
For our app we front-loaded the list of accounts with the most "popular" users (number of likes, messages) within their criteria when people signed up. So the sort order was always "hottest" first then everything else.

This was to get people to sign up so they could chat.

People would get the most "success" with those closest to their own level but that did not result in subscriptions at the same rate as putting the hottest up front.

Just one of the many ways the apps don't work the way you expect.
by uberman | 2025-06-03 15:57:36+00:00
I can say from personal experience, it now costs about double to eat out than it did pre-pandemic. Half of that increase coming this year alone. Pre-pandemic eating out at a nice place near where we live cost about $100 for the family including drinks. This week we had appetizers and one actual dinner for $180. Five dinners would have been well over $200. I hate cooking, but even McDonalds is approaching $15 per person.
by avovsya | 2025-06-03 15:57:45+00:00
Thank you for your feedback! I do indeed have file transfer in the roadmap and was planning to launch with it(thus the leftover text, thank you for noticing), but file sharing over 100 Kb is still buggy, so it was disabled until better times. It's is buggy because no data goes through my server, it's all P2P using WebRTC(which e2e encrypted). As for open sourcing it - I will consider it as I do not plan to charge for this tool.
by bonoboTP | 2025-06-03 15:57:47+00:00
It's really embarrassing to put a stake in these. It's like when Gary Marcus said that an image generator won't be able to draw a horse riding an astronaut and will make the astronaut ride the horse because that is a more frequent pattern in the training set. Or when an urban legend (academic legend?) started that state of the art classifiers misclassify cows when they are on sandy beaches and it only works on grass (it happened in some cases with small datasets and shortcut learning but there was no sota image classifier with such glaring and straightforward errors, but it trickled down to popular consciousness and grade school teaching materials on AI limitations.) Now it's about hallucinating nonexistent libraries. But reasoning models and RAG and large contexts and web search make this much less of an issue. The limitations everyone point at that trickle down to a soundbite that everyone repeats usually don't turn out to be fundamental limitations at all.
by phlogisticfugu | 2025-06-03 15:57:52+00:00
liquidtrust.io | Remote (US) | Founding Senior Engineer

LiquidTrust builds practical, scalable payment solutions that empower small businesses to compete in global markets with greater security and confidence. In 2025, the company introduced Micro Escrow Pay, the first instant escrow solution designed specifically for SMBs, providing the same payment protections that were once only available to large corporations.

We are seeking an entrepreneurial Senior Software Engineer to join as a key early member of our team. As our second U.S.-based engineering hire, reporting directly to the CTO, you’ll play a critical role in designing and building the core of our secure micro-escrow payments platform—transforming how SMBs send and receive payments.

If you are are looking for the opportunity to make a large impact across a variety of areas, are , highly technical and seeking a once in a generation opportunity to change a trillion dollar industry (that’s how big global payments is!), this opportunity is for you.

https://www.liquidtrust.io/careers/senior-software-engineer-...

mention Hacker News in how you heard about this position
by satisfice | 2025-06-03 15:58:03+00:00
That’s not a “calculated risk.” It’s just a risk.

I don’t see how the OP is paying enough attention to know that terrible things are not happening. Sure, he can roll back, but that only works well for obvious problems that he catches in time.

I haven’t heard that it is inherently dangerous to use popular tools of the normal sort without carefully scrutinizes every output. But there are many horror stories about the unreliability of LLMs.
by hombre_fatal | 2025-06-03 15:58:24+00:00
Aside, I tried to move my ~/Code folder (where all my programming projects and work live) into the macOS iCloud folder so that everything would auto-sync.

But the constant Git churn created a lot of traffic and collisions in that folder. And when I googled it, apparently it's just not a good idea to sync Git projects in iCloud.

I really want to easily sync my folders so that I can just get a new macbook and recreate my environment.

Anyone have any tips?
by hofrogs | 2025-06-03 15:58:51+00:00
Stores won't sell a SIM card without the buyer providing valid state ID, and SIM cards are disabled by carriers if they suspect you are using someone else's card and you can't provide an ID for it. This is one of the recent laws. Getting a phone number/data plan that isn't associated with your real identity (and instead registered to someone else, usually a homeless guy somewhere) isn't impossible, but those wouldn't come from a grocery store.
by Nasrudith | 2025-06-03 15:58:52+00:00
Reminds me of one funny probably-not-taken-very-seriously historian theory about Alzheimer's - that air pollution was responsible for its existence and the few natural sources were rare enough that there weren't any 'got Alzheimer's by spending too much time by an erupting volcano' cases. The main reason being the lack of pre-industrial accounts of anybody being old enough to show memory issues.

It isn't strong proof by any other means. The bias of the accounts excluding it would sort of be like concluding that acne wasn't an issue because painted portraits of teens excluded them. I don't know if this theory is true but it is certainly an interesting one.
by Voice_of_Void | 2025-06-03 15:59:36+00:00
The second installment of "Architecture of Future Reasoning ASLI" moves beyond theory - into code, structure, and deployment. In this publication, we unveil RASLI (Reasoning Artificial Subjective-Logical Intelligence) - the first AI architecture designed from the ground up for true reasoning, not just response generation. Inside this release:

· A working dual-controller system (planning + validation)

· Persistent state management and context-aware processing

· Hybrid execution across neural modules, factual databases, and computational engines

· Formal truth verification with confidence thresholds

· Immutable ethics core using WebAssembly and cultural adaptation layers

· Deployment models for cloud, hybrid, and on-premise environments

· Integrated monitoring, scalability, and security protocols

RASLI represents the turning point: not scaled mimicry, but structured reasoning. This is AI that verifies, iterates, adapts - and reasons.
by Reubachi | 2025-06-03 15:59:48+00:00
I disagree on the reasoning.

I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies.

You are looking at cost relative to per capita income assuming 100 percent perfect productivity, when it is more proper to look at metrics tracking ROI versus potential other investments.

The government has never cared to track the above as a matter of organizational efficiency, because every 4 years we swap the organization. ("DOGE" certainly is attaining nothing.)

Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans.

In comparison, I would be perfectly OK with .005 percent of my income tax being dedicated to space research, as that is the clear future for low touch technology/networking/travelet. It is very easy to track ROI.