MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mvkel | 2025-06-14 05:42:01+00:00
I think I know what happened.

The A-squad design team left Apple 15 years ago.

The B-squad left 5 years ago.

What remains is a sea of Gen Z designers who weren't yet alive when the foggy glass of Windows Vista seemed like a good idea.

Meanwhile, the talent wars are raging, with every AI company offering 7-figure salaries to the best of Apple's prodigies.

Apple is now the old guard. They're no longer cool, and as a public company, cost controls are too stringent; they can't pay as much. What is Apple to do?

They can give the designers a sense of ownership. It's not a question of how (un)qualified the team is; it's a retention play.

Is the design good? The A and B squads would say no. But this is the best Apple can do these days to keep critical talent engaged.

They'll burn a cycle re-learning fundamental lessons in accessibility, retain talent, and cling to the hope that next year they'll have a midwit Siri than can book a flight with a decent looking UI.
by mazone | 2025-06-14 05:42:25+00:00
It is not about MFA or not but to demonstrate the process is secure for the purpose.

It can be complicated but a example. TOTP that is very common used with passwords is regarded as MFA (tho most of the time software based on phone) but have many problems regardless

- many time replayable - can be intercepted - implementations look different - recovery code reuse problems etc.

On the other hand, using only passkeys dont have those problems but with passkeys, many times you cannot decide on what device a user have registrated the passkeys in a enterprise setting. example they could be apple passkeys, chrome passkeys, windows, hardware key(yubikey) etc and all of them behave different when it comes how they ex can be copied/ synced between users devices. So from where they can be used.

So for any authentication flow, you need to look at the full picture. What is the process when credentials are lost? How do user onboard etc.

Is a good entry point to say. We should use MFA or similar but the details matter.
by andrekandre | 2025-06-14 05:43:12+00:00
> armchair experts were laughing at us old people for reminiscing about the eye candy of OS X ...they told us... everything needs to be flat. ... You're not supposed to know the difference between text and buttons...

its pretty clear, i think, most of this stuff, including from the designers (apple) themselves are just post-hoc justifications in the end...
by jruohonen | 2025-06-14 05:44:11+00:00
"The problem arises if you haven’t learned how to do this without the LLM, such that the composite capacity (e.g. writing a report) develops in a way that has the LLM baked into it from the outset. For example reliance on LLMs for an outline only concerns me if students haven’t learned to do this without the LLM in the first place."

Applies to programming too.
by roenxi | 2025-06-14 05:44:11+00:00
I have some respect for arguments so I'll avoid the snark this time. However, I don't see how any of this is particularly relevant. It seems to be very pro-government but if you scroll up a bit you'll see my original post was arguing that in this instance the Californian government could fund this; if they care. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

> Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research?

That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably, yes.
by safety1st | 2025-06-14 05:44:39+00:00
I haven't lived in Australia in many years so I don't know what it's like now, but back in the '80s when the first Rotto Bun Run happened I have no doubt that most businesses in Perth would have been closed for Good Friday. To hear the story of why the one on Rottnest was open you might have to fly there yourself :)

Bet the fuel was cheap back then too!
by saurik | 2025-06-14 05:44:44+00:00
On the one hand you say it's dystopian, but you also seem to be celebrating it? ;P Maybe a show with a fanbase of 1 is in fact the best show in the entire world ;P. Regardless: I don't think you end up with no shared culture at all, because if something happens to me that normally would only happen to just me I still tell my friends about it, and maybe they want to experience the same unique thing I saw, and the same will be (and already is, fwiw) true of AI generated slop.
by soulofmischief | 2025-06-14 05:45:44+00:00
You have missed the point of the analogy. I'd ask that you sit on this for a while and earnestly trying to understand what I'm explaining, which is how each generation of artists has a relationship with the prior generations that involves both imitation and rejection. Creatives are not one big blob of people, they all have their own opinions on what is and isn't great art, and it's all subjective.

And a lot of these moments of inertia, scenes, etc. are rooted in technological progress. And sometimes, the technological process is so great that prior generations of creatives feel as if the newer generations are "skipping" the required work to becoming a "true" artist; but that is just gatekeeping.
by twelve40 | 2025-06-14 05:45:44+00:00
> if we truly understood how LLMs think perfectly we could predict the maximum number of parameters that would achieve peak

It's a bit of a strange argument to make. We've been making airplanes for 100+ years, we understand how they work and there is absolutely no magic or emergent behavior in them, yet even today nobody can give an instant birth to the perfect-shape airframe, it's still a very long and complicated process of calculations, wind tunnel tests, basically trial and error. It doesn't mean we don't understand how airplanes work.
by akkartik | 2025-06-14 05:46:13+00:00
Don't bet too much, because I'm still undecided on LLMs.

Interestingly, I have no memory of ever thinking about LLMs as I wrote this. Part of it is I slaved over this talk a lot more than my usual blog posts, for about six months, after starting the initial draft in Dec 2022 (https://akkartik.name/post/roundup22). ChatGPT came out in Nov 2022. So I was following (and starting to get annoyed by) the AI conversations in parallel with working on this talk, but perhaps they felt like separate threads in my head and I hadn't yet noticed that they can impact one another.

These days I've noticed the connections, and I feel the pressure to try to rationalize one in terms of the other. But I still don't feel confident enough to do so. And my training has always emphasized living with ambiguity until one comes up with a satisfying resolution.

It took us 200 years from the discovery of telescopes[1] to attain some measure of closure on all the questions they raised. There's no reason to think the discovery of LLMs will take any less time to work through. They'll still be remembered and debated in a hundred years. Your hot takes or mine about LLMs will be long forgotten. In the meantime, it seems a good idea for me to focus on what I seem uniquely qualified to talk about.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140310031503/http://tofspot.bl... is a fantastic resource.
by adastra22 | 2025-06-14 05:46:26+00:00
The luxury watch was released in April 2015. The cheaper stainless steel model wasn't released until the fall event a few months later.

But I was talking about branding and marketing; sorry if that wasn't clear. At release the Hermes and "Edition" models were the story. The Apple Watch was the next fashion accessory. You couldn't even buy it at an Apple Store -- you could get fitted, but had to order it shipped to store. But the Hermes store next door had the expensive models in stock.

It wasn't until 2016 that Apple partnered with Nike and changed their branding for the watch to be about health and fitness.
by serial_dev | 2025-06-14 05:46:56+00:00
That’s an interesting point, never thought about it.

These complicated lenses distorting light from all directions look fancy in a designer portfolio, having them almost everywhere… I’m not sure how it will work out.

In contrast, the original material design was quite intuitive, iirc they based their design on paper sheets, much simpler, and much more common in our day to day life.

I still have some hope it will work out great, if Apple can take the accessibility visibility issues seriously, and developers using it in moderation, it can be great.
by seydor | 2025-06-14 05:47:10+00:00
the fact that it's surprising does not make it a visual cue. A cue to what? I am not aware of any psychophysics study that says we have perception of droplets or lens transformations (in contrast to shadows , gradients etc that are well studied). There also doesn't seem to be an evolutionary reason for it because the natural world does not have lenses and glass. And UIs are usually based on intuitive features.
by debugnik | 2025-06-14 05:49:10+00:00
I do think Jane Street fell into a sunk cost fallacy when they first stuck to OCaml. But after having invested further into an OCaml/OxCaml codebase, teams and tooling, switching tech stacks has lost most of its value.

Also, their efforts benefit me greatly as an OCaml (now maybe OxCaml) user, so I'm glad they took that path.
by soulofmischief | 2025-06-14 05:49:41+00:00
Does a camera give away a photographer's "voice" just because he doesn't have to draw his art by hand, but can simply press a button?

Does a sculpture artist who uses aides to carry out his will give away his "voice" just because he didn't do the physical labor himself?

Does a game designer give away his "voice" just because he has a team under him that independently executes on all manner of creative work surrounding the his central thesis and incremental feedback?

Don't be preposterous! My voice is whatever I decide for it to be, how arrogant to decide that for me! If you aren't into it, great: you weren't the intended audience and your critique is irrelevant.
by tevon | 2025-06-14 05:49:58+00:00
I’ve been using the beta on both iPad and iPhone for the last couple days and I have to say I quite like it.

I find the interactions intuitive, and the rearrangement of the UI (placement of buttons and such) better than prior versions.

I was concerned about readability, but has not been an issue at all.

There are some awkward portions, but seems like something that can be worked out.
by jruohonen | 2025-06-14 05:50:07+00:00
> "Goodbye wasted reading time. Hello relevance."

The marketing slogan seems a little off given your audience.

> "Everything you get from ScienceDirect AI includes clear citations and direct links to the original source material."

If you market it that way, you should also deliver because otherwise the backfiring is guaranteed.

> "You can chat with it and interrogate the document."

I am not sure whether this feature is a selling point for your audience. But who knows.
by andriamanitra | 2025-06-14 05:50:12+00:00
Most great things that require a large amount of money are funded mostly by collectives (historically the state and church, more recently companies) rather than wealthy people. SpaceX has certainly done some cool stuff (even before it started being funded by taxpayer money through government contracts), but I think the value of all of these billionaire-funded endeavors are a rounding error in comparison to all the infrastructure, science, education and healthcare that has been collectively funded. By limiting excessively wealthy people you give money a better chance to be allocated well.
by roywiggins | 2025-06-14 05:50:23+00:00
The reason why breast cancer became a cause celebre is that it really was a taboo disease that couldn't be talked about. Cancer generally, but breast cancer even more. There was a time when "awareness" really was important because people were not aware.

That progress has happened with it doesn't mean much to things like endometriosis, which has a mean time to diagnosis of ~a decade, a point made in TFA. People commonly suffer undiagnosed with it for ten years due to a collective failure. Finding a cure might be very difficult, but fairly rapid diagnosis really shouldn't be, it's not like Alzheimer's.

The numbers presented are stark: "Yet, it stands almost entirely alone in terms of how little funding the condition receives relative to the absolute number of lives it irrevocably alters for the worse: 10% of women (or 190 million) worldwide, with only $29M earmarked for them."

That's really bad. Like, really bad. It's not surprising that women might get very mad about this state of affairs.
by ulrikrasmussen | 2025-06-14 05:52:19+00:00
Thank you! I have been searching for something like this but for some reason couldn't find your work.

I am currently implementing a Datalog to PostgreSQL query engine at work as we want to experiment with modeling authorization rules in Datalog and then run authorization queries directly in the database. As I want to minimize the round trips to the database I use a different approach than yours and translate Datalog programs to recursive CTEs. These are a bit limited, so we have to restrict ourselves to linearly recursive Datalog programs, but for the purpose of modeling authorization rules that seems to be enough (e.g. you can still model things such as "permissions propagate from groups to group members").
by pjmlp | 2025-06-14 05:54:39+00:00
I would assume universities had clever enough people to use OpenJDK distributions instead of Oracle Java installers.

It is like complaining they are paying for Visual Studio and Apple XCode developer licenses (Apple tax, anual membership, whatever you feel like calling it), instead of using plain GCC or clang.

But hey, lets hate Oracle for the universities broken decision making process.
by jcgrillo | 2025-06-14 05:57:07+00:00
In addition to the licensing risks there's significant technical risk, IME. Chief among them is making sure your colleagues are sufficiently literate to have read Bloch's and Goetz's (et al.) books, and sufficiently tasteful to synthesize those lessons into code which isn't horrible. This is exceedingly rare in practice. So there's the same risk, approximately, as with every other programming language and that's reckless Dunning-Kruger ass programmers.
by rhet0rica | 2025-06-14 05:57:26+00:00
To further elucidate, it's a contraction of "rice burner," suggesting the vehicle uses rice as fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_burner

As Wikipedia relates, "rice burning" refers to a technique of clearing the roots of a rice paddy with fire after a harvest, a bit like slash-and-burn in forestry, and "rice burner" was indeed used as a slur against East Asian people in the second quarter of the twentieth century.

However, simlevesque is not wrong—the term is not usually used in the modding community in a bigoted manner, despite its obvious past association with bigotry. Rather, because Japanese cars were affordable, modding them was seen as cheap, so a car enthusiast with a modded Japanese car was considered a wannabe or imposter, especially if the modifications made their car superficially resemble traits associated with expensive American and European muscle cars, such as extra tailpipes or a louder engine. The ultimate vehicle for these modding jobs was the Honda Civic, which was plentiful and had lots of kits made for it; when Honda released the high-performance Type R edition street racers were quick to expand the "R" to "Rice" (only a mild alteration of the intended meaning, which was something like "Racetrack-worthy.")

In computing, the jargon of "ricing" or "being a ricer" carries a slight air of self-deprecation because front-end customization enthusiasts recognize their endeavors are shallow—many of them can barely administrate the Arch Linux installs they've set up, and almost none of them actually do any programming. The heart of this community remains 4chan's /g/ board, though arguably Reddit owes its entire existence to such people.
by mrtksn | 2025-06-14 05:58:03+00:00
I think I'm convinced with liquid glass design, the issues highlighted by the users in the beta release IMHO are a result of rushing it out for WWDC. It appears that they didn't have enough time to polish the UI to comply with the principles described in this video.

For example the designer in this video says no glass over glass but the control center and the lock screen are glass over glass. It looks cluttered and the legibility is horrible, as predicted by the designers here.

They probably just compiled the old UI with the new liquid glass framework without going through the design considerations that are required by the new system.

By the time of the release, it will look great if Apple doesn't shy away from letting their developers re-work everything.

What I wonder now is, why hadn't that happen already? Don't the internal developers have access to the new design and the people behind it until the last moment? If the designers of Liquid Glass and the designers of the locks screen and the control center have talked, they would have known the principles described in the WWDC video and avoid all that.
by MichaelRo | 2025-06-14 05:59:27+00:00
I don't quite buy it. What the heck is R&D even? How much of a software development company is classified as R&D (I never heard or seen this ever in my life and I've seem some accounting sheets). Seems like bullshit to me.

If I've a software company and I sell products (licenses) and services (supports), and make $150,000 a year from a customer. Then if I pay my developer $100,000 gross salary, my expenses with development are $100k so I'm left with $50k taxable income. The developer doesn't do no R&D bullshit, we're selling accounting software not curing cancer.

As a shareholder in the company I can get money out as dividends, on which I have to pay tax but that's it and it's a lot less than the taxes on labor that the developer pays on his $100k. There's still $50k per developer x 100 developers = $5M to draw from.

I don't see where's the big issue, oh noes, no more amortization of R&D, we're fucked.
by pjmlp | 2025-06-14 06:00:50+00:00
The problem is not a GC language per se, people keep putting all GC languages in the same basket.

The real issue is being a GC language, without support for explicit manipulation of stack and value types.

Want a GC language, with productivity of GC languages, with the knobs to do low level systems coding?

Cedar, Oberon language family, Modula-3, D, Nim, Eiffel, C#, F#, Swift, Go.
by soulofmischief | 2025-06-14 06:01:10+00:00
> many, many artists share this point of view

Bandwagon fallacy.

> slop-generating

Strawman. I never said what level of quality I find acceptable to sign off on.

> algorithmic regurgitation

Computational generative art has been practiced since the 1950s, and mathematically-derived generative art has been done by hand even farther back since at least the 19th century. Is a century not long enough time for people to accept it as a valid form of expression?

> the basic definition of an artistic creation ... disgustingly vapid and far from art

Gatekeeping, and No true Scotsman fallacy. Art is subjective.

> Comparing this to typing, editing, calculating and reprinting tools like the ones you mention is laughable and factually wrong

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, you also have missed the point of the analogy. I won't rehash what I said there.

> Even a calculator isn't the same

The accuracy and social validity of calculators were distrusted for a long time, and computers as well.

> It doesn't create your mathematical equations for you

It takes care of a lot of what was considered by many to be essential duties for any self-respecting mathematician of the era. Photoshop and cameras were similarly criticized. Learn some art history before dismissing this stuff.

> But to have AI create for you while calling yourself an artist is simply lazy intellectual dishonesty

You clearly have little idea how artists are integrating these tools into their work, and how it is allowing them to think and operate at a higher level, just like digital painting did to traditional painting, even though many felt "technique" was lost or ignored, they themselves ignore all of the new technique that comes with mastering new creative tools.

If you don't like the art, fine. If you don't like it solely on the basis of how it was created, that's fine, but it is by definition bias. But it's arrogant to go even further and start declaring what is and isn't art, and who is and isn't an artist. That is not for you to decide. Furthermore, your argument is riddled with fallacies and needs serious review.
by jmyeet | 2025-06-14 06:03:27+00:00
I heard a story (unconfirmed) that at the time Oracle was buying Sun, it was pretty obvious that owning Java then suing people, most notably Google, was the whole point.

Google not buying Sun may go down as one of their poorest decisions. I mean rumor has it, Google offered $6 billion to buy GroupOn (which they turned down). If GroupOn is worth $6B (it isn't) then owning Java is worth $7.5B.

I suspect Google believed they had an implicit license from Sun to use Java on Android, otherwise this was a massive licensing failure. While Sun still existed, even buying a token license would've been cheap.

Now Google ultimately prevailed in their lawsuit setting an important precedent but at what cost? It was over a decade of uncertainty and cost who knows how much in legal fees. And while it was ongoing, Android was under a cloud and Google had to abandon a bunch of things it was otherwise doing with Java.

Oracle is just the worst.
by dmkolobov | 2025-06-14 06:04:45+00:00
Probably? Locality becomes fairly important at scale. That’s why there’s a strong preference for array-based data structures in high-performance code.

If I was them I’d be using OCaml to build up functional “kernels” which could be run in a way that requires zero allocation. Then you dispatch requests to these kernels and let the fast modern generational GC clean up the minor cost of dispatching: most of the work happens in the zero-allocation kernels.
Show HN: A Product to Feature Your Products
by Sathish_t | 2025-06-14 06:05:57+00:00
GoPublicly is a product to feature your products — built for indie hackers, startups, and creators to showcase what they’ve built, get discovered, and collect feedback. Whether you're just launching or already growing, GoPublicly helps you reach your audience and boost visibility — one launch at a time.
by tonetegeatinst | 2025-06-14 06:06:41+00:00
thermal protection coating is an interesting topic. I'm unsure what is done industrially but for the hobby person who wants to build a metal furnace, fire bricks and kale wool are your only real options. Fire bricks get expensive but let you reach higher temps, but both are expensive.

I'd be happy to see some affordable TPC for hobbyist that allows us to reach steel melting temperature 3l>3000° (iirc)
by PollardsRho | 2025-06-14 06:06:55+00:00
People are hurt by animals all the time: do you think having a higher IQ than a grizzly bear means you have nothing to fear from one?

I certainly think it's possible to imagine that an AI that says the exactly correct thing in any situation would be much more persuasive than any human. (Is that actually possible given the limitations of hardware and information? Probably not, but it's at least not on its face impossible.) Where I think most of these arguments break down is the automatic "superintelligence = superpowers" analogy.

For every genius who became a world-famous scientist, there are ten who died in poverty or war. Intelligence doesn't correlate with the ability to actually impact our world as strongly as people would like to think, so I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate that outwards to a kind of intelligence we've never seen before.