MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kennywinker | 2025-06-09 17:38:12+00:00
If the irish don’t think it fits, why do they keep calling it a genocide?

They want to expand the definition of genocide to include blocking aid (already a war crime, and something israel is consistently doing). They want to do this not because they have any doubt that a genocide is occurring, but because the current definition makes it too easy for supporters of this genocide to sew doubt allowing the genocide to continue.

P.s. still waiting on your retraction.
by IAmBroom | 2025-06-09 17:38:27+00:00
> The choice to become a parent, or to not become a parent, is one of those choices in life that requires a leap of faith.

No, it requires sticking one's gonads inside another's gonads and agitating briefly, during a not-rare selection window.

We don't come from a long line of voluntary parents. I had zero of them, directly.

I still agree that being a parent is an amazing, life-transforming event that has gigantic potential upsides. But it also has gigantic potential downsides, including financial ruin, lifelong misery, and/or sudden death (for at least one of the parents).

All I'm saying is: most of our ancestors didn't choose anything when they rubbed cloacae.
by mdp2021 | 2025-06-09 17:38:36+00:00
> LLMs provide plenty of answers where "right" is not a verifiable metric

I do not use them for that: I ask them for precise information. Incidentally, that one time in which I had to ask for a clever subtler explanation, it was possible to evaluate the quality of the answer - and I found myself pleasantly surprised (for once). What I said is, some people ask LLMs for information and explanation in absence of better and faster repositories - and it is just rational to do so. Those «answers where "right" is not a verifiable metric» are not relevant in this context. Some people use LLMs as <whatever>: yes, /some/ people. That some other people will ask LLMs fuzzy questions does not imply that they will accept them as oracles.

> bias ... all humans do

Which should, for the frame and amount in which the idea has some truth, have very little substantial weight and surely does not prove the "worshippers" situation depicted by the OP. You approach experience E in state S(t): that is very far from "wanting to trust" (which is just the twisted personality trait of some).

> the impulse of ascribing intent and meaning [...] meaning of life

First, of all, no: there seems to be no «intent and meaning» in requests like "what is the main export of Kyrgyzstan", and people who ask an LLM about the meaning of life - as if dealing with an intelligent part instead of a lacking thing - pertain to a specific profile.

If you have this addiction to dreaming, you are again requested to wake up. Yes, we know many people who stubbornly live in their own delirious world; they do not present themselves decently and they are quite distinct from people radicated in reality.

I am reading that some people as if anthropomorphize LLMs, some daemonize LLMs - some people will even deify them - it's just stochastics. Guess what: some people reify some other people - and believe they are being objective. The full spectrum will be there. Sometimes justified, sometimes not.
by johnea | 2025-06-09 17:39:57+00:00
I would only agree to this to the extent that humans have engineered this "evolution".

That's why they're called "breeds", because humans bred them.

They're bred for cuteness, violence, but mostly they're bred for profit.

The "pet industry" is a rapid growth segment of the economy. If a pet is "part of the family", then isn't the "pet industry" basically a slave trade?
by andrewl-hn | 2025-06-09 17:40:06+00:00
It's not amortized. I.e. the company simply subtracts all salaries for the year from the revenue and pays tax from the difference. Salaries being amortized means on year 1 you can only subtract X% of salaries and the taxable amount becomes much larger. Year 2 you will use the X% for the second year salary and another Y% for the already paid salary of the first year. So, the difference becomes less, and the taxes become less, too.

For a stable company that has a constant revenue stream and an established body of workers there's no much of a difference: instead of paying all tax for current year salary you pay 6 chunks of tax for 6 different years of salaries - which would be about the same amount.

For early companies things can be pretty tough. You may earn, say 100k in a year one and pay your employee 100k. Your company now has 0 in the bank, but for the taxation purposes the taxable amount is like (100k - 10% of 100k = 90k), at 20% corporate tax that would mean that the company has 0 in the bank but owes the government $18k in taxes. It's much harder to start a software business in this kind of environment.
by jonathanehrlich | 2025-06-09 17:40:47+00:00
What if we trained a smaller KV cache for our documents offline? Using a test-time training recipe we call self-study, we find that this can reduce cache memory on avg 39x (enabling 26x higher tok/s and lower TTFT) while maintaining quality. These smaller KV caches, which we call cartridges, can be trained once and reused for different user requests!
by _fat_santa | 2025-06-09 17:40:56+00:00
> AI generated web content has got to be one of the most counterproductive things to use AI on.

For something like a blog I would agree, but I found AI to be fantastic at generating copy for some SaaS websites I run. I find it to be a great "polishing engine" for copy that I write. I will often write some very sloppy copy that just gets the point across and then feed that to a model to get a more polished version that is geared to a specific outcome. Usually I will generate a couple variants of the copy I fed it, validate it for accuracy, slap it into my CMS and run an a/b test and then stick with the content that accomplishes the specific goal of the content best based on user engagement/click through/etc.
by mmsc | 2025-06-09 17:41:16+00:00
>for your users doing _free_ software testing for you!

In comparison to _paid_ software testing, which doesn't change the point at all: if they were paid to find bugs, they wouldn't be paid for useless and unactionable reports.

>you’re complaining that listening to your users is hard

Sometimes - and I'd wager most of the time - they are, yes, unless your product solely attracts technically competent and advanced users that can attempt to understand/reason about what is causing the issue.
by TheRealPomax | 2025-06-09 17:41:38+00:00
They don't have to. When you only have $100, every cent matters. Once you have 10k, dollars still matter, but cents not so much. They stop having value. And that just keeps going: once you have several hundred million, a million bucks has no value. It's not just "a small amount of money", it simply has no value anymore. You're not "spending it" so much as "whatever"ing it.

(Which is why no one should ever even be allowed to have that much money)
Do you keep a .txt file with all your notes/todos?
by liorgrossman | 2025-06-09 17:41:40+00:00
Hey HN,

It might be an old-school habit (40 y/o here), but I keep a .txt file on my Mac with tons of snippets and references, e.g. useful git or shell commands, TypeScript/CSS reference, helpful ASCII characters, my daily TODOs, and more.

For technical stuff, I find it much faster than using janky apps like Evernote or Google Keep, so it never slows me down.

However, it's still not ideal - since my .txt file has become pretty large, I'm finding it hard to keep it up-to-date or organized, and it's getting harder to find things.

I've been thinking of building a better alternative that would also allow easy sharing/discovery/forking of technical notes from others (https://earlytap.com/get/gitnotes), but I'm still pondering whether this is an actual need shared by enough people.

Curious to hear: are any of you keeping .txt files with notes on your computer too? What do you use the .txt file for? Did you find any better alternatives?
by SnowflakeOnIce | 2025-06-09 17:41:41+00:00
> Well, the current generation of LLMs blow away that Turing Test

Maybe a weak version of Turing's test?

Passing the stronger one (from Turing's paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence") involves an "average interrogator" being unable to distinguish between human and computer after 5 minutes of questioning more than 70% of the time. I've not seen this result published with today's LLMs.
Show HN: A Code Agent that can do runtime debugging by walking the call stack
by zentara_code | 2025-06-09 17:42:22+00:00
I was frustrated with the buggy code generated by current code assistants. I spend too much time fixing their errors, even obvious ones. If they get stuck on an error, they suggest the same buggy solution to me again and again and cannot get out of the loop. Even LLMs today can discover new algorithms; I just cannot tolerate that they cannot see the errors.

So how can I get them out of this loop of wrong conclusions? I need to feed them new, different context. And to find the real root cause, they should have more information. They should be able to investigate and experiment with the code. One proven tool that seasoned software engineers use is a debugger, which allows you to inspect stack variables and the call stack.

So I looked for existing solutions. An interesting approach is the MCP server with debugging capability. However, I was not able to make it work stably in my setup. I used the Roo-Code extension, which communicates with the MCP server extension through remote transport, and I had problems with communication. Most MCP solutions I see use stdio transport.

So I decided to roll up my sleeves, integrate the debugging capabilities into my favorite code agent, Roo-Code, and give it a name: Zentara-Code.

Zentara-Code can write code like Roo-Code, and it can debug the code it writes through runtime inspection.

My previous discussion regarding Zentara is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1l1ggkp/demo_i_...

I would love to hear your experience and feedback. It would be great if you could test it in different languages.

Documentation: zentar.ai

Github: github.com/Zentar-Ai/zentara-code/

VS Code Marketplace: marketplace.visualstudio.com/items/?itemName=ZentarAI.zentara-code
by bustadjustme | 2025-06-09 17:42:59+00:00
Sorry if I missed it, but how is a single token output from an LLM comparable to a search result from an engine? The author here compares 1k tokens (as an estimate for an average LLM single query response) to 1k web search queries. How is this not a factor of 1000 error?

> To compare a midrange pair on quality, the Bing Search vs. a Gemini 2.5 Flash comparison shows the LLM being 1/25th the price.

That is, 40x the price _per query_ on average (which is the unit of user interaction). LLMs with web-search will only multiply this value, as several queries are made behind the scenes for each user-query.

EDIT: thanks, zahlman, he does quote LLM prices in 1M tokens, or 1k user-queries, so the above concern is mistaken!
by freedomben | 2025-06-09 17:43:27+00:00
When you buy farm equipment, you're getting something that (barring manufacturer defects, natural disasters, etc) is (nearly always at least) a long-term asset going to be providing a very predictable level of value over the next many years. Same with computers and things like that. With software development, the predictability is almost entirely non-existent for new and/or smaller software companies. I've personally worked on many projects/codebases that either never shipped or threw away huge parts of the code before shipping.

You're not really taking a financial gamble .

Also I think it's worth mentioning that, software engineers are people who are paid salaries, while farm equipment is not.

A more accurate comparison would be if instead of buying a finished tractor you hired a couple of handymen to come build you one from scratch. It may or may not work at all. It might end up costing you 10x or 20x or more what you would have paid for an off-the-shelf solution (so valuing it at the labor cost is a ridiculous thing to do. Who in the market is going to buy a custom-built tractor at 20x the market rate?)
by em-bee | 2025-06-09 17:44:19+00:00
the article claims that a contributor to art benefits from enjoying the art and a contributor to cancer research doesn't (except for feeling good), and therefore quadratic funding would favor art contributions and disfavor cancer research contributions. GP claims (and i agree) that contributors to cancer research do benefit beyond feeling good. eg because they, or someone they care about might have or get cancer later and benefit from the research.

the challenge is that measuring benefit is hard.
by leakycap | 2025-06-09 17:44:43+00:00
This will be interesting to see play out. I agree with Mr. Goldman's take that putting the gray text "user agreement" in the lower corner does nothing.

I can load the page and view the information without interacting with said agreement; therefore, I certainly didn't agree and may not even have been aware.

Reminds me of people who ran Hotline servers back in the day, except before the server would let you connect you'd be shown a modal with an agree or disagree. Websites with that type of User Agreement might have more to stand on, but even then I'm not so sure.
by abeppu | 2025-06-09 17:44:48+00:00
> Potential energy minimization is one of the most basic forms of goal-directed behavior.

I'm confused by this statement. Potential energy minimization happens when my errant soccer ball rolls down a hill, but this seems not at all goal-directed. In this sentence the author has a link to a timestamp in a >2h youtube video, in which this opinion is expressed but I think not clearly justified. To me, this seems to obscure the difference between inert physical systems like my rolling soccer ball and systems capable of having goals (e.g. an animal walking presumably towards something). Further, I think it neglects that potential energy may be part of a goal-seeking strategy, like a bird of prey hanging out really high so it can dive quickly onto an unsuspecting rodent.

> Actuation mechanisms are modeled with an action-dependent energy function

And because the framework being described is intentionally flexible, I think maybe we need to be careful about distinguishing between a simulation of physical energy, and energy as a metaphorical way that control or influence is exerted on a system.
by lyu07282 | 2025-06-09 17:44:54+00:00
> I'm suggesting that the market will take care of the cost/benefit equation, and that the externalities are part of the costs.

You believe that climate change is an externality that the market is capable of factoring in the cost/benefit equation. Then I don't understand why you disagreed with the statement "the market will somehow do something to address climate change". There is a more fundamental disagreement here.

You said:

> If these tools [LLMs/ai] have some value, then we can finally invest in forms of energy (i.e. nuclear) that will solve the underlying problem

And again, why? By what mechanism? Let's say Microsoft 10x it's profit through AI, then it will "finally invest in forms of energy (i.e. nuclear) that will solve the underlying problem". But why? Why would it? Why do you say "we" if we talk about the market.
by JohnMakin | 2025-06-09 17:45:15+00:00
This is the classic refrain product owners counter back with any time people present reasonable criticism of their AI app.

User: "This (AI product) doesn't work!"

Product Owner: "Well, humans are also bad at that."

That's not the promise of these apps in general! The whole selling point of AI is that they're vastly better - if my eyeball estimate is "pretty inaccurate" and by your own admission the app is "pretty inaccurate" then why the hell would I use your app??

From the very top of the page you linked:

> SnapCalorie is the first app where you can take a picture of any meal and get an accurate calorie count and nutrition in seconds

(emphasis mine)
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-06-09 17:45:43+00:00
>Will the power company believe you that your system will only ever provide a tiny amount of power?

A small guage wire (ex:24 AWG) is limited to low voltage use. The issue is that voltage will drop over distance less than a city block.

ref: https://www.cctvcamerapros.com/AC-DC-voltage-drop-cable-dist...
by ericmcer | 2025-06-09 17:45:45+00:00
Thanks for mentioning voice, I prefer that to photos. Photos seems like the most complex technically.

AI seems to be going heavy into text/chat and images but voice is really the perfect UI to me. I would be totally fine if I could trigger a "call" from the app and talk to an AI on the phone for 30s and it could log my meal, give me some advice, etc.
by robomartin | 2025-06-09 17:46:17+00:00
I firmly believe 174 has to be repealed. Like many bills and regulatory overreach in the US, 174 does not promote and support entrepreneurship, risk-taking, investment, etc.

All I am saying in my prior comment is that clever treatment of your engineering costs can improve tax outcomes. We have done just this --under the guidance of our tax attorneys-- and have had no problems at all.

Of course, a company that is a pure software enterprise and not multi-disciplinary, like us, is, well screwed.

Keep in mind that at year 6 you are effectively deducting your full R&D costs, even for a pure software company. The real cost is the TVM due to the phase shift, at year six you reach steady state (assuming steady costs).
by Notatheist | 2025-06-09 17:46:37+00:00
Wasn't it Feynman who said we will never be impressed with a computer that can do things better than a human can unless that computer does it the same way a human being does?

AI could trounce experts as a conversational partner and/or educator in every imaginable field and we'd still be trying to proclaim humanity's superiority because technically the silicon can't 'think' and therefore it can't be 'intelligent' or 'smart'. Checkmate, machines!
by snyy | 2025-06-09 17:46:41+00:00
In addition to size and speed we also offer the most variety of chunking strategies!

Typically, our current users fall into one of two categories:

- People who are running async chunking but need access to a strategy not supported in langchain/llamaIndex. Sometimes speed matters here too, especially if the user has a high volume of documents

- people who need real time chunking. Super useful for apps like codegen/code review tools.
by mindslight | 2025-06-09 17:47:24+00:00
The problem is the difference between stating:

"masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population"

and something like:

"we do not know if masks are effective"

What was said was readily misinterpreted as "masks have ... been shown to [not] be effective for the general population", especially by a science-illiterate population reading with a non-individualist perspective. Whereas the second directly acknowledges the lack of understanding in an evolving situation.
by chimeracoder | 2025-06-09 17:48:25+00:00
> I've always thought of these VC fueled expeditions to nowhere as the opposite. Wealth transfer from the owning class to the middle class seeing as a lot of these ventures crash and burn with nothing to show for it.

That would be the case if VCs were investing their own money, but they're not. They're investing on behalf of their LPs. Who LPs are is generally an extremely closely-guarded secret, but it includes institutional investors, which means middle-class pensions and 401(k)s are wrapped up in these investments as well, just as they were tied up in the 2008 financial crisis.

It's not as clean-cut as it seems.
by dns_snek | 2025-06-09 17:48:34+00:00
Who's talking about participation? We can be appalled by their business practices as their customers (actual or potential). These are the same companies that tell us that our privacy and security is their #1 concern, and use that justification to take away our rights "for our own good", but when there's a real threat they address it with with a business-casual equivalent of "fuck off".
by sam0x17 | 2025-06-09 17:48:36+00:00
Only things for which you have parsing rules and a parser and a thing that can form sentences. This is literally the CS definition. It just doesn’t require consciousness.

Truly random tappings on a tree are not language, but if a type of bird signals that predators are nearby by striking a tree with their beak with consistent rules that are understood by other birds or creatures, then you have language. But you would have us not study these things because you think they are beneath us. I would instead say we are nothing special, and thus everything is special, or at least historically we always miss out on scientific insight when we arrogantly assume humans have X but other life forms do not.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-06-09 17:48:38+00:00
>That confused me a bit too, but what I suspect is that owning a pet is kind of like having a permanent baby,

No, he's saying that having a puppy is something a child does, something that's normal for children. If you're doing things that only children should be doing, you are infantilizing yourself (changing your brain in ways that prevents you from growing up properly).
by TheTaytay | 2025-06-09 17:48:52+00:00
Thank you for helping to tackle this. The silence on this issue for the past few years from smaller software companies and their affiliates was surprising to me. The recent "time bomb" article was one of the few media pieces that actually took the time to describe it as anything other than a "tax cut for huge tech companies", which was refreshing.

My current favorite theory as to why there hasn't been more of an outcry is that many companies ignored the rule change (either out of ignorance or as an alternative to going out of business), and are forced to remain silent.
by jlokier | 2025-06-09 17:49:07+00:00
Not when it comes to capital assets. The full cost of a large capital asset is generally not allowed to be treated as an expense for tax purposes.

It's technically correct that tax is levied on "net income", but that's an accounting term which means something different from "money_in - money_out" when there are capital assets.

One justification for this is, although you spent the cost, you received equivalent value in the form of the asset itself.

This means if it costs $100k in salary to make software this year, and you get $30k in income from the software this year, your bank balance will lose $70k (which is expected) and you'll have negative income in the ordinary way of thinking, but you'll be charged income tax (which is new) despite losing money, as if you gained (almost) $30k instead of losing $70k.

Your tax accounts will show an increase in net assets, despite the decrease in your bank balance, because they will show the software as being "worth" (almost) $100k, regardless of what it's really worth right now.

This is particularly hard if you're a small company or (non-VC-funded) startup that's already stretching to cover the cost of speculative software development. Being charged income tax even while you're losing money developing software (in the ordinary way of thinking about money) is what's new in the tax code. It makes it harder than before to do speculative developments, making some kinds of development non-viable that were viable before.