MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by roenxi | 2025-06-02 00:10:23+00:00
WWII was pretty compelling evidence of why Britain needed a global empire, but nonetheless the empire was dissolved.

There is a pretty good argument here for at a minimum reforming NATO. Some major points include that the US appears to be bluffing about having useful support to offer Eastern Europe through the NATO structure, also appears to have different defence priorities than Europe does, NATO itself failed to preserve peace and Europe looks like it has militarily atrophied to a pretty significant extent under NATO.

It is not clear how the situation will ultimately be interpreted, but the US's involvement here is pushing Europe towards being the next middle east. That isn't a great outcome.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-02 00:10:26+00:00
If we’re not accustomed to this “overflow” notation, it only looks like a typo and an error. In my world, the day-of-week begins/cycles at 00:00, so don’t tell me that is happening on a Tuesday!

It also does not help for entry into a programmatic form or database field. That sort of notation is only good for output to a human who knows this custom.
by 29athrowaway | 2025-06-02 00:10:34+00:00
Job creation for robots, yes. Remember that now workers will come in two flavors, human and robot.

But robots need no compensation, no health insurance, they don't have any rights, can work 24/7, they cannot sue the company because they have no legal representation, cannot steal from the company, they can suffer an "fatal" accident with minimal liability to the company, they can erase their memory of any liability to the company, will always say yes to everything, training them (for a human = pre-k, kindergarden, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, graduate school, etc) for them is transferring a file or receiving commands wirelessly from a central computer, they don't get bored and quit, they don't get unhappy and start looking for jobs. Good luck competing against that.

Once one ML model automates a job, you can make a million copies of that model file and that job is gone. Similar to the Borg (one adapts, all adapt). Once robots start building robots, you get an exponential amount of robots that quickly take over.

A human needs protection from temperature, noise, injuries, exposure to chemicals, exposure to biohazard, protection from other workers, from management, from animals, from their work equipment and gear, and... from robots! Every aspect of a human is protected including their privacy, biometrics, etc. On the other hand, robots require protection from: nothing. They are completely expendable and their cost will be driven down over time.

If you make a robot 33% as productive as a human per unit of time, because it can work 24 hrs instead of 8 hrs, it has the same output.

Society in 2025 is a pyramid scheme based on scarcity and now the base of the pyramid will be taken over by robots. The people who are left outside the system will be the government's problem. But unlike in the industrial age, large amounts of people will no longer be a key to power so their political representation and rights will be evaporate. There will be no universal basic income (that would result in humans multiplying geometrically and eating up all the resources). Robots will be the key to power therefore who controls the robots will control the government, that means, oligarchs or superhuman AI. And then at least one oligarch will give full autonomy to the AI to prevail against the other oligarchs (humans are bottlenecks), and in doing so the one who rules everything will be superhuman AI.

You may think that people in the future will have cheap access to AGI and therefore be able to scrape a living somehow... the problem is that once large AI conglomerates get all the data they need, access to cheap AI will be cutoff and all the deskilled masses will be left with will be endless brainrot social media feeds and nothing to eat.
by throwaway314155 | 2025-06-02 00:11:02+00:00
Well spoiler alert - I cheated in college! I have acute bipolar depression (undiagnosed back then) and fortunately my only punishment was to fail that class rather than expulsion. I'm now a successful software engineer with 12 years of career coding under my belt. I do good work and I don't cheat.

Sorry it wasn't harder to counter your response. I would really implore you to change your perspective and attitude. Other people generally aren't psychopaths trying to take shortcuts. they are as i said, often just very desperate.
by tibastral2 | 2025-06-02 00:11:22+00:00
Let's pretend you have good dating apps and bad dating apps at the time T. As soon as you find love on a dating app, they "lose" you as a user, you stop paying your monthly fee, and you leave the app. So I have a theory about dating apps. They give you somebody average, somebody that you could like enough, but not for too long, because YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO THE APP for them to succeed. So only the bad dating apps darwinely are being used more and more by people. They have more and more profiles (who doesn't find love).

It's called retention my friend, and it's the key metric for apps.
Show HN: Mindly – One chat interface for GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini and more
by riley-wv | 2025-06-02 00:11:54+00:00
Hey HN,

I built Mindly because I was tired of juggling multiple AI tools across different tabs, subscriptions, and contexts. Every time I switched models, I had to re-explain what I was working on. It killed the flow.

Mindly gives you a single place to chat with multiple LLMs — GPT-4o, Claude 4, Gemini 2.0, and more — without switching tabs or losing context. It's lightweight, fast, and works on both desktop and mobile.

You get:

1,200 messages/month to standard models

80 messages/month to premium models (e.g., o4-mini, Claude, Gemini 2.5 Pro)

Threaded conversations

Live reasoning summaries (experimental)

Only $7/month — no separate API keys required

I just launched it last week and I’m looking for early feedback from developers and builders.

Would love to know what you think or how you'd improve it.

Cheers, Riley
by at0mic22 | 2025-06-02 00:12:27+00:00
Curios enough, drones definitely produce interference from rotors apart from sensible noise. A modern anti-drone system should not rely on traditional reflection-detecting radars but try detecting electric motors, radio signals from 3g/4g modems etc. And it does not necessarily have to work for many miles.

I would see it as a reasonably sized box loaded with interceptor drones, they don't even have to explode. That's something we will see en masse shortly from the Russian side.

Actually nobody should take Russians as dumb and clumsy. They adapt fast. And they can benchmark fast too, thanks to ukrainians. The only open questions is whether the rest of the world accepts new situation, or will continue spending billions on less effective F35s
by bgwalter | 2025-06-02 00:12:50+00:00
I wonder why people reflexively quote a "fallacy" from the year 1891! It wasn't true even back then, as evidenced by the multiple economic crises that followed.

Nowadays we have a completely different economy to begin with, saturated with "bullshit jobs" (Graeber) already.

The amount of new inventions is finite. In the 1990s we had TGV, Concorde and Maglev trains. Perhaps physical inventions have been somewhat exhausted?

What invention is on the horizon that will provide new jobs for those laid off from "bullshit jobs"?

How did society support Einstein when he discovered relativity? It didn't: Despite the invention of the tractor in 1892, which, according to HN commentators, should have provided him with a carefree life, he had to take a job in the patent office. Which, according to "AI" fanatics, would now be automated by "AI".
by neilv | 2025-06-02 00:13:40+00:00
Some of what you're arguing agrees with what I said in previous comments in this thread.

What I disagree about is pushbutton generative "AI" popping out the end product.

I want kids to learn by figuring out things as they're building something that they want to build.

And when they can't independently invent a concept or technique that they need for something they're building, you can nudge them. (Example: Their 2D video game screen refreshes are too slow, and now they would be excited to be introduced to double-buffering. And now they'll know exactly why they need it and how it works. So, the next time they need a related graphics improvement, they've had that prior learning experience, and might be able to figure it out on their own.)

Imagine if young Carmack had been plopped down in front of a vibe coding session for Unity or Unreal, stated what he wanted, and it emitted yet another generic 3D first-person shooter. Would he have ever been motivated to innovate anything, and if he was, would he have the cognitive strength and learning skill to do so?
by pclmulqdq | 2025-06-02 00:14:07+00:00
Usually, when people think about the prompt tokens for a chat model, the initial system prompt is the vast majority of the tokens and it's the same regardless for many usage modes. You might have a slightly different system prompt for code than you have for English or for chatting, but that is 3 prompts which you can permanently put in some sort of persistent KV cache. After that, only your specific request in that mode is uncached.
by leptons | 2025-06-02 00:15:16+00:00
The Amiga 1000 can do 14 bit stereo sound. What did the Mac have? Oh, single-channel 8-bit. It doesn't matter if it took all the CPU to do it, the mac simply was not capable of coming anywhere close to Amiga in terms of graphics or sound. The standard Amiga sound capabilities were 4-channel stereo 12-bit, which was still light years ahead of Apple.
by peeters | 2025-06-02 00:15:28+00:00
I guess like with all categorization, genres are reductive generalizations. And I'm saying the sci-fi generalization is much less descriptive of Andor than the political thriller generalization is. You could transplant Andor to WWII historical fiction and it would be less of a change than changing the mood and story to fit what most people's preconceived notions of sci-fi is.

I guess in short, I'm saying that you really don't have to be open to the sci fi genre to enjoy Andor.
by Hilift | 2025-06-02 00:15:35+00:00
"are humans safe from AI in a bunker?"

While an underground bunker might offer some protection against certain AI threats, it's not a guaranteed sanctuary from all potential AI-related dangers.

Here's why:

1. Physical Access:

Robotics and Automation: Advanced AI could control robots capable of breaching or bypassing traditional bunker defenses. Advanced Weaponry: AI could potentially develop or deploy weaponry designed to penetrate or neutralize bunkers.

2. Cyber Attacks:

Networked Bunkers: If a bunker is connected to external networks, it could still be vulnerable to cyberattacks launched by AI, potentially disabling critical systems. Compromised Devices: AI could target devices or systems brought into the bunker, potentially gaining control or access to the bunker's internal network.

3. Information Warfare:

Propaganda and Manipulation: AI could be used to spread misinformation or manipulate bunker occupants through targeted propaganda. Psychological Warfare: AI could potentially analyze and exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of individuals within the bunker, potentially undermining their morale or cohesion.

4. AI Evolution:

Unforeseen Capabilities: As AI evolves, it may develop capabilities that are currently impossible to anticipate, making it difficult to predict or prepare for all potential threats.
by jrozner | 2025-06-02 00:16:30+00:00
For the most part, everything in your last point is something you can’t solve with an app. Virtually all of that would be problematic meeting someone in any other way and for the most part is all within your control to change. Sure, there are limits to what you can do about conventional attractiveness but there is a lot within your control for most people. Most of those issues you brought up are things that the vast majority of people don’t want in a partner no matter how you meet them. If you like those attributes about yourself you might eventually find someone compatible but if you don’t, most/all of those are things you can address by going to therapy and working on it.
by netsharc | 2025-06-02 00:16:36+00:00
Serendipity makes me think of Omegle. Which makes me think of a "Speed-Dating" app: you get connected to a random person like Omegle, but there's a time limit, say 3 minutes, and at the end of it you can decide to either extend the conversation or record a "nice talking to you, but I didn't feel any spark" video (a recording makes rejecting them less confrontational).

Users can give feedback whether the opposite user was rude or offensive, and the service should be quite strict about bans.

I wonder if it'd be a turn-off though, if you spend 30 minutes to talk to ~10 people you don't find attractive. Maybe there should be a Tinder-esque selection process, so when you're online, you'll get offered other profiles which are also online, and if you both swipe right you'll get to a video-chat within seconds.

Ouch, imagine the pain if you're online, swiping right, but never get connected to anyone. Another problem is that the hot people will always be in a conversation and their profiles will only rarely show up (since they won't be instantly available).
by Fr0styMatt88 | 2025-06-02 00:18:46+00:00
No specifically the question of how do you write maintainable code with generic multi-dispatch and highly dynamic languages.

I like Python, but I like static typing too because there’s just less to think about and when I have to learn a new codebase there’s a lot of assumptions I can lean on about how things work; this saves time.

I like the idea of Smalltalk and when you watch Alan Kay or Dan Ingalls talk about it, they make total sense and you have Pharo and Squeak to back it up as in “yes, you can build large systems with this idea”.

But I don’t think you could program Smalltalk and have it be maintainable without everything else the environment brings. Being inside the environment with your objects. The total different approach of sending a message an object doesn’t understand, then having the debugger pop up and then you just implementing that message right there. That’s just an utterly different workflow.

I like the idea in ‘late binding of all things’ and I think the approach of writing a DSL for your problem and then having to write far less code to solve your problem is great. But the objection is then always “okay but what about when someone else has to work with that code”.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, the more dynamic your language is, the more support you need from your tooling to ease the cognitive load while you program, simply because the state-space of things you can do is bigger and not being restricted by types, etc.
by morkalork | 2025-06-02 00:18:54+00:00
Not sure why the sibling comment is dead, it's an interesting topic. Here is a safe for work video of someone walking through countless strands of fibre over a field: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1l0ld99/...

I read one operator describe the forests as being like Mirkwood from the Hobbit. Eerie.
by at0mic22 | 2025-06-02 00:19:29+00:00
I find it more interesting seeing tires on the wings.

Would assume that drones do not drop cumulative ammo, but the shrapnel ones. Those tires in theory should have protected from smaller pieces flying around causing a mess of a damage.

Russian media reports of 2-4 planes being destroyed while others are damaged. Think this dumb cheap hack actually helped a lot in minimizing the effectiveness of the strike.
by coro_1 | 2025-06-02 00:19:46+00:00
Slightly off topic, but I only recently discovered Samurai Jack. I found it through some old VHS archive recordings. The care with the animation is unreal. I'd love any links or suggestions for where to find more authentic versions. Commercials welcomed. The original airings have a different feel compared to the heavily processed versions on streaming platforms and archive.org
by quesera | 2025-06-02 00:20:12+00:00
Seems uncharitable to me.

// TODO: Verify server name: require `^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$`?

There may be several elements of server name verification to perform.

That regex does not cover the complete range of possibilities for a server name.

The author apparently decided to punt on the correctness of this low-risk test -- pending additional thought, research, consultation, or simply higher prioritization.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-02 00:20:19+00:00
Don’t forget Deep Impact, sort of a summer companion blockbuster, but which “astronomers said was more accurate”, could feed your Hobbit obsessions, and NASA went on to name a space probe after it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Impact_(spacecraft)
by kranke155 | 2025-06-02 00:20:31+00:00
From Gilroy’s own telling, it happened during the filming of Season 1 in Scotland? That seems to be what he told Happy Sad Confused on their recent interview.

He realised that everything, absolutely everything in Star Wars needs to be designed, that it took ages to do, and that it would be forever to make 5 seasons. So he pitched to Diego to only make one more.
by chickensong | 2025-06-02 00:20:35+00:00
Agreed Ansible isn't fully declarative like some other tools, but the variable management, roles, template engine, and integrated vault, are a big improvement from shell-scripts-over-ssh. Also in some cases, having yaml structure can be a good thing. Handing a pile of shell spaghetti to a new hire and expecting them to reason about it is less than ideal.
by lesuorac | 2025-06-02 00:22:00+00:00
I'll agree its more profitable if you never lose customers and gain them over time but selling a product that doesn't do it's job will eventually cause customers to leave and never come back.

Why won't the end game be people just stop using Match Group's products?

Alternatively, if you're not already in the dating industry then making a successful match making product is just profit (and then you can pivot to not working ...).
by peeters | 2025-06-02 00:23:15+00:00
Not referring to that actually, I think that was actually a great bridge to Ep 4 that helps put the story in context for casual fans.

More the presence of the Force and Jedi lore. They were so close to not having that be part of Rogue One but were still forced to include the mystical super beings in some way. Andor was able to fully detach from that baggage, focusing on the little people doing their part. And when they did bring in the Force healer in the second season, it was exactly how you'd expect average people to respond to a mystical power that you didn't directly witness. Hope, faith, skepticism, denial, rejection.

As far as Vader goes...it does make you wonder if he's just toying with Obi-Wan when he meets him like 3 days later...
by pledess | 2025-06-02 00:23:45+00:00
For "With your threat model in mind, they should identify opportunities to add new test cases," one common reason is that security engineers are shared across a large company and it may be very expensive for them to learn the different testing frameworks used on many different projects. Also, independent review (without any exposure to developers' conceptions about what should be tested, or why, or how) may be economically justified because outcomes of security bugs are sometimes much worse than outcomes of many categories of ordinary bugs. Other reasons may include that the security engineers want to run a test that can't be expressed in your testing framework without a huge change to the framework, they may want to develop their test cases adaptively such that most of the tests turn out to be useless and the cost of capturing every test under version contol may be very high, they may want to run tests from a commercial testing product for which the license does not allow bulk copying of the tests into a customer's testing framework, or (if they aren't in-house engineers) their business model is that they won't tell you every test that was run unless there's an associated defect finding.
by spartanatreyu | 2025-06-02 00:23:51+00:00
It's easy to miss since it's a small link near the top of the post, but something that will help a lot in understanding this post is this video:

The most beautiful program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyfBQmvr2Hc

It essentially gives you a quick 5-min overview of the lisp language, then shows you how to implement lisp in lisp with only a few lines of code.

IMO, understanding lambda calculus is much easier for the uninitiated after watching that video.
by robocat | 2025-06-02 00:25:15+00:00
If they were nuclear bombers, then an attack on nuclear deterrent infrastructure should really put the shits up the US (what if Russia mistook who was attacking?).

From another article (although maybe journalist is making shit up):

The attacks that went after the heart of Russia's strategic [bomber] capabilities and one arm of its nuclear deterrent should serve as a global wake-up call.

Also if they are part of Russia's strategic military assets, then wouldn't Russia wonder if the US was a secret puppetmaster?
by falcor84 | 2025-06-02 00:26:58+00:00
> what meaning would identity groups have if typification was absent?

I think it's very clear that identity groups would then have no meaning. It's a social construct, and we as a society should be able to dissolve it, just like we decided that it isn't useful to talk about separate "human races" any more.

I for one can imagine a world where everyone is only judged as an individual without any group identity.
by crazygringo | 2025-06-02 00:27:11+00:00
> How does increasing the productivity of software engineers benefit anyone but employers?

It benefits every single consumer of the software products. They get more features faster, or pay less for the same set of features. That's the entire justification of the free market -- corporations benefit by benefiting consumers with better products via competition.

> How do "AI" tools benefit humanity?

Like literally every single other technological advance that makes things easier or more productive. Nothing special about it in that sense.
by SatvikBeri | 2025-06-02 00:27:13+00:00
I found a huge difference between Sonnet 3.7 and Sonnet 4.0 here. Two weeks ago I rejected most suggestions, now I accept most of them.

In addition, after a 3 hour session I told it to create a CLAUDE.md that would help it program similarly to me, based on my preferences. I then edited that file a bit, and that has helped a lot.
by SloopJon | 2025-06-02 00:28:13+00:00
> The thesis is predicated on the idea that people claim this is the result of some study. I’ve never once heard it presented that way. It's a rule of thumb.

Code Complete cites eight sources to support the claim that the average cost to fix a defect introduced during requirements is 10-100x if it's not detected until after release. My qualm with Hillel's original assertion is that "They all use this chart from the 'IBM Systems Sciences Institute'" (emphasis added). I haven't personally vetted Steve McConnell's citations, but I am skeptical that they all share this common origin.
Ask HN: What should you ask to understand a new team and company?
by laura2013 | 2025-06-02 00:29:07+00:00
When joining a new company, I want to understand what’s working well and where the gaps are, from the perspective of my manager, peers, and leadership.

What are the best questions you’ve asked (or wish you had asked) to uncover:

- The team's strengths

- Weaknesses or blind spots

- Communication styles

- How decisions actually get made

- How you can help early on

- What success looks like

I’m especially interested in questions that go beyond the surface-level onboarding process and reveal real insights. I understand this takes time and the first 1:1s might not be as efficient while you get to know the team and them you.

What’s worked well for you?