MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gizmo686 | 2025-06-07 06:27:59+00:00
My work has involved a project that is almost entirely generated code for over a decade. Not AI generated, the actual work of the project is in creating the code generator.

One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. The nature of reviewing changes is just too different between them.

Another thing we learned very quickly was that attempting to generate code, then modify the result is not sustainable; nor is aiming for a 100% generated code base. The end result of that was that we had to significantly rearchitect the project for us to essentially inject manually crafted code into arbitrary places in the generated code.

Another thing we learned is that any change in the code generator needs to have a feature flag, because someone was relying on the old behavior.
by rzz3 | 2025-06-07 06:32:22+00:00
This started as a trend on TikTok, and it’s funny to me that TSA posts on Facebook to counteract it. Trends run so far so fast on TikTok. I don’t have a source but I think I saw the original video, and it simply said that a Costco card counted as a photo ID for the _alternative verification process when you don’t have a real ID_, then someone else took it out of context and the classic “telephone game” started from there.
by defrost | 2025-06-07 06:33:34+00:00
I've written various types of aviation support software on and off since the early 1980s.

One of my favourite planes were the Grumman Mallards still owned and operated by Paspaley Pearling out of Mungalalu Truscott and other Kimberley airbases.

They're classic 1950s twin-engined amphibious aircraft that landed anywhere up and down the Kimberley Coast for pearling transfers.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_G-73_Mallard

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungalalu_Truscott_Airbase
by lazyasciiart | 2025-06-07 06:35:24+00:00
No - it’s aimed at people who say they can’t do x because they aren’t in the right headspace/feeling creative/they’re too tired, they will do it when inspiration strikes. People who are waiting for some uncontrollable muse before they finally write their novel, and waiting until they feel like a creative person to start taking drawing lessons, or waiting til the essay idea jumps fully formed into their head before they start drafting. That isn’t a description of all procrastination.
by cbanek | 2025-06-07 06:35:56+00:00
I'm a huge fan of theaters. There's a local art theater (non-profit) that had a tier of support that allowed for free tickets to any movie. The price was $1500/yr, and you could write off a fair amount of that as a charitable donation on your taxes. I loved going, and would easily go multiple times a week, sometimes everyday for a whole week.

Sadly, I moved away from that town, and instead bought a 98" 4k TV. It cost about the same ($1500), and now I can't imagine going back to a theater. This size of TV gives me that same theater experience at home where I can see small details in movies that are hard to see normally on smaller TVs. My sound system isn't as great, good stereo pair, but I could easily improve that for another $1500.

Plus, those costs are generally one time costs, and this setup will likely last me at least 5 years if not 10. Going to a theater just doesn't make sense anymore.
by xp84 | 2025-06-07 06:36:53+00:00
> maximalist outlook that population must grow

I don't, I'd be perfectly happy with a stable population too. Infinite growth is a dumb goal and I don't support it as a goal (at least until someone demonstrates space colonization).

But a society where generations get dramatically smaller is screwed. You need a balanced (or better) ratio of workers to retirees, mainly. If you took the US and teleported a representative (by age) sample of 80 million people by age to another planet, our society here wouldn't collapse, everything would be pretty ok, we would still have the same basic economy, and the fewer kids and elders to take care of, the reduced consumption, would balance out the loss of the workers. But if they took 80 million people between 30 and 65 instead (that's probably most of that age group), things would go really badly for us, because there aren't enough 20-somethings and 65+ workers to do all the things that keep the kids and retirees fed. If we simply wait 30 or 40 years, China (among others) will be in a situation like that. US is not much better and I can certainly imagine it getting much worse in the US. And I can confidently predict a maximum number of 30 year olds we'll have in 30 years because every one of them has already been born. Even extreme measures can at best only make more 2055 29-year-olds.

> how is China doing better or worse than its peers?

As I stated, China has one of the worst birth rates -- numerically it's doing worse. I don't have a beef with China. I hope they and the rest of the West can figure out how to improve the birth rates soon.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-07 06:37:49+00:00
Secured loans of that form are easy, sure.

But if those skyrocket in price from tax, they'll be more subtle about convincing banks they're good for the money and pay a slightly higher rate for unsecured loans.

Or maybe they'll just treat the asset securing the loan as having the pre-gains price. Get the bank to agree it's worth at least what you paid, with no further analysis.

If you try to plug those loopholes you lose the "much easier to do because there is no disputing the assessment since the person implicitly agrees to the valuation" factor.
by astrobe_ | 2025-06-07 06:38:20+00:00
> because that's how our mind operates

It is by no mean specific to programmers. Ask to someone who learns French, for instance. Rules with too many arbitrary exceptions.

What is specific to programmers is that their tool performs at its best with simpler rules, so their job is to find the necessary and sufficient set of rules - and will dismiss most of the cases pointed by this article as unimportant exceptions the software won't handle.
by verisimi | 2025-06-07 06:40:44+00:00
In defence of procrastination, perhaps there are good reasons for failing to have enthusiasm for whatever-it-is. Perhaps trying to do something but being unable to muster the energy is an indication that this is not the thing you really ought to be doing. That the thing you believe to be a worthy goal is itself a false goal, and not where your heart is at, and that you need to take a second, deeper look.

Or maybe that is just another excuse :)
by q-base | 2025-06-07 06:40:44+00:00
Tech Lead, Enterprise Architect or C# developer - decide on checkout. 15+ years of experience from airline, finance, pension and manufacturing as well as 2 startups. Ready for freelance contracts.

Location: Copenhagen/EU

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: C#, React, React Native, a bit of Python

Specialties: Finding order in complexity, Seeing shortcuts and problems with design and implementation. EIOPA, Shrems II, NIST

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jesper-reiche-65b42226/

Email: jrhn@jmr.dk
by scbrg | 2025-06-07 06:40:52+00:00
Not really. It's just that software by definition must create a model of the domain it attempts to handle. And a model is, in the end, a set of rules. With an absence of rules, the software can't really do anything, as would be pretty pointless for actually solving any problem. The alternative is to hand the users Notepad and say "knock yourselves out".

I'd argue that programmers are indeed much more aware of how many exceptions and edge cases most real world domains have. Ask a lay person about such a simple thing as leap seconds, for instance, and they'll often believe you're making shit up.
by JustinCS | 2025-06-07 06:41:50+00:00
I find that frontend takes most of the dev time for most apps, and I certainly consider it "harder" to get everything working to the quality level I want. However, backend work is usually more critical, as problems can result in data loss or security issues. Frontend problems often just result in bad UX, and they are easier to do a surface-level check too (just use the app and check that it works).

Due to this, companies may have a higher bar of expertise for backend which may give the impression that it is "harder", but I don't think this is a very important distinction.
by morepedantic | 2025-06-07 06:41:59+00:00
>Ultimately, we traced the issue to a 15-year-old Git function with O(N²) complexity and fixed it with an algorithmic change, reducing backup times exponentially.

No, not in the exact same sentence as a big-O. That's either author error, or an intentional troll. Either way it's egg on their faces.
by luckz | 2025-06-07 06:42:50+00:00
> Build your own foundation model for coding. tbh I'm skeptical that a company can do this better than the Big 3 AI cos.

They already have their own "tab" model which might not be a very large one but definitely better than most open weight models on short code snippet completion. And for larger agentic LLMs, they can totally start from a pre-trained base model (e.g. deepseek R1) and only do post-train/RL/finetune, which is doable with a small team and their cash reserve. It's not hard to imagine a good base model (probably deepseek V4?) + cursor's user data leads to a model that surpass sonnet/gemini on coding tasks only.
by teleforce | 2025-06-07 06:42:57+00:00
Nobody really know for sure to be honest but he's most probably one of the top ten.

The linked BBC article in the HN post has the list for top 10 richest man in history with Mansa Musa at the very top but Shah Jahan the Mughal Emperor who's the owner of Taj Mahal is not even in the list [1].

The 10 richest men of all time:

1) Mansa Musa (1280-1337, king of the Mali empire) wealth indescribable

2) Augustus Caesar (63 BC-14 AD, Roman emperor) $4.6tn (£3.5tn)

3) Zhao Xu (1048-1085, emperor Shenzong of Song in China) wealth incalculable

4) Akbar I (1542-1605, emperor of India's Mughal dynasty) wealth incalculable

5) Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919, Scottish-American industrialist) $372bn

6) John D Rockefeller (1839-1937) American business magnate) $341bn

7) Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov (1868-1918, Tsar of Russia) $300bn

8) Mir Osman Ali Khan (1886-1967, Indian royal) $230bn

9) William The Conqueror (1028-1087) $229.5bn

10) Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011, long-time ruler of Libya) $200bn

[1] Is Mansa Musa the richest man who ever lived?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47379458
by maerch | 2025-06-07 06:43:11+00:00
It’s about taking small steps to get the flywheel turning, not about “just doing it.” You need small wins to build up motivation for the bigger, more complicated tasks.

If you want to lose weight but don’t feel motivated, it might be because you associate getting started with a strict workout routine and highly restrictive dieting. But taking smaller steps in the right direction can spark motivation. From my own experience, I know I naturally start eating healthier as soon as I get back into running.
by MantisShrimp90 | 2025-06-07 06:43:18+00:00
Its just not that simple. The best way I can dovetail with the author is that you are thinking in terms of the abstraction but you have mistaken the abstraction for reality.

Physics, biological sciences, these are tools the mind uses to try and make guesses about the future based on past events. But the abstraction isn't perfect, and its questionable on whether or not it could or should one day be.

The clear example is that large breakthroughs in science often comes from rethinking this fundamental abstraction to explain problems that the old implementation had trouble with. Case in point being quantum physics which has warped how we original understood newtonian physics. Einstein fucking hated quantum because he felt it undermined the idea of objective reality.

The reality (pun intended) is that it is much more complex than our abstractions like science and we would do well to remember they are pragmatic tools and are ultimately unconcerned with the practice of metaphysics which is the underlying nature of reality.

This all seems like philosophy ramblings until we get to little lines like this. Scientism, or the belief that science is the primary and only necessary lens to understand the world falls for the same trap as religion of thinking that you have the answer to reality so anything else outside is either unnecessary or even dangerous to one who holds these views.
by Wobbles42 | 2025-06-07 06:43:22+00:00
The problem with this strategy is that the "instant death zone" is much much smaller than the "3rd degree burns over 100% of your body" zone.

I don't share your fatalism, but I can't criticize it. It is an understandable position. With that said, if your desire is truly to remove yourself from existence in the aftermath of such an event it is better to have some plan to do so already laid in. The majority of immediate casualties will not be deaths, you are very likely to regret relying on the weapons.

That would also grant you the chance to reconsider whether the resulting world is actually not worth living it -- or at very least to confirm that it is in fact so bleak.
by morepedantic | 2025-06-07 06:45:34+00:00
>pedantic

Who the fuck do you think is the intended audience for an article about an algorithm in `git bundle create`? I spent approximately two minutes of my life trying to figure out where the O(n^2) algorithm was being invoked in such a way that it influenced an exponential.

Exponential was bolded in the same sentence as a big-O. 50/50 troll/author oversight.
by remarkEon | 2025-06-07 06:47:55+00:00
No, I don't have to agree with this actually. My view of language isn't a keyhole because I refuse to play a game about the very obvious meaning of that word. The US tech sector is, first and foremost, the US tech sector. I am not required to adopt a watered down version of reality or supplant my own language because there's people from other countries who work here.
by morepedantic | 2025-06-07 06:49:11+00:00
Algorithmic? Big-O? Polynomially? Linear improvement? O(n^2) to O(n)? Or if you want to be less mathematically precise: enormous improvement?

Using exponential in this way in any context is a faux pas, because it's highly ambiguous, and requires context for clarification. But in this situation the context clearly resolved to the mathematically accurate definition, except it was used in the other way.
by Huxley1 | 2025-06-07 06:49:49+00:00
My mom’s been helping out at a small local shop, and they’ve been trying to move away from plastic packaging. They tried compostable films and recycled paper, but either the cost was too high or the materials just didn’t hold up well.

This transparent paper made from cellulose sounds really promising. If it can handle heat, looks good, and actually breaks down in the environment, that would be a big help for shops like theirs.

Has anyone here worked with this kind of material? I’d love to hear how it performs in real use, especially with things like liquids or anything sensitive to moisture.
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-07 06:49:59+00:00
No, the reason the "there is always an in-party Senate spoiler" effect (when they have a Senate majority) seems to be more true of Democrats is because it is more true of Democrats, and the reason is that when the two parties in rough balance by popular support (or even rough balance in Presidential electoral prospects, which has the same directional bias as the Senate but of lesser magnitude), the Republican Party has a systematic edge in dominance of states, which translates into a systematic advantage in the Senate, which means that when the Democrats have a Senate majority, it tends to have a decisive segment in red-state Democratic Senators who are unreliable on key priorities.

The issue being discussed in the Senate is not a symmetric issue resulting from near balance in support between the parties.
by davydm | 2025-06-07 06:50:53+00:00
A suggestion I could make, since there's obviously the concern from your side that people just milk the service for free, is to perhaps provide some real world examples, eg links to reports on google.com, microsoft.com, facebook.com, etc. let me see what I'd be getting out if I grant you the ability to email me and possibly share my email without my consent, even unintentionally, eg via a breach.
by gametorch | 2025-06-07 06:51:16+00:00
You know, I agree.

I think there are two components of art that make it valuable - first, the entire history and human context behind the art. This component is sentimental in nature and inextricably linked to both the artist and the beholder. People value art because it means something to them in a way that is often indescribable. And yet you can definitely say that this sometimes-indescribable meaning is definitely not "because it looks cool." It seems related to the sum of all human feeling about the art.

The second component is being automated away. That component is "this configuration of pixels can be used to convey meaning in a practical sense." I need a retro pixelated cactus for my game. I can generate a really good looking one for 10 cents because this component of art has been commodified.

Just because the second component of art's value has been commodified and its value has been driven to zero through competition, that doesn't mean the value of the first component has changed at all. If anything, I'd think people now value art with most of its valued anchored in the first component even more than they used to.

One last thought - I agree with your semantics regarding what we define as art. I apologize for calling this commodified thing, for lack of a better word, "art" throughout my comment. Whatever you call it, I want it for my video games. And I still want the real true human art just as much, if not more, than before the advent of these technologies.
by genocidicbunny | 2025-06-07 06:51:57+00:00
> Personally, it boggled my mind that something as big as an aircraft did not have a simple time invariant unique identifier.

It boggles my mind that despite not having some sort of universal system things work as well as they do.

Aviation grew up relatively insular, and each country that had any sort of aircraft manufacturing did things their own way until fairly recently. Arguably, the first half of the history of aviation is a kind of free-for-all. The fact that we now have a globalized airline industry that mostly follows some kind of standards is the mind-blowing part to me. And I suspect if we weren't mostly down to a dozen or so manufacturers for the vast majority of airliners, even that wouldn't be the case.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-07 06:52:36+00:00
> Wrong, with large userbases you're going to lose business doing that, many real businesses using novelty TLDs

Yes, a security filtering system can have false positives. Can't get them all.

> "Plus I think it should be illegal from an net neutrality perspective "

This is what you would say if your only conception of law comes from reading stuff on the internet about the internet. I don't think you've had much legal training.
by genocidicbunny | 2025-06-07 06:54:21+00:00
Engines are actually changed fairly frequently because they're a wear component on most airplanes. They are also sometimes updated to a newer version or even an entirely different manufacturer. And often it's faster and cheaper to swap in a new engine that's ready to go rather than wait for the one that's attached to be overhauled, so the same engine might see service on multiple airframes.
by dtagames | 2025-06-07 06:56:37+00:00
LLMs don't work the way you think. In order to be useful, a model would have to be trained on large quantities of code written in your new language, which don't exist.

Even after that, it will exhibit all the same problems as existing models and other languages. The unreliability of LLMs comes from the way they make predictions, rather than "retrieve" real answers, like a database would. Changing the content and context (your new language) won't change that.
by roncesvalles | 2025-06-07 06:57:13+00:00
"If you want to lose weight, just eat less" is not as tautological as you may think. Many people don't actually know that if you just eat the same calories as someone 20 lbs lighter than you, you will eventually weigh 20 lbs lighter, that you don't need to "do" anything else to shed those 20 lbs.
by BoorishBears | 2025-06-07 06:58:12+00:00
That's not really a cop out here: both models had access to the same tools.

Realistically there are many problems that non-reasoning models do better on, especially when the answer cannot be solved by a thought process: like recalling internal knowledge.

You can try to teach the model the concept of a problem where thinking will likely steer it away from the right answer, but at some point it becomes like the halting problem... how does the model reliably think its way into the realization a given problem is too complex to be thought out?
by morepedantic | 2025-06-07 06:59:03+00:00
I've seen this exact problem in C code many times in my life, especially in kernel space where data structures and memory allocations are fun.

Ironically, this is much _faster_ for small sets. Sometimes the error is intentional, because the programmer believes that all inputs will be small. IME, those programmers were wrong, but that's the inverse of survival bias.
by WuxiFingerHold | 2025-06-07 07:01:28+00:00
Not a fan of apps like this, tbh. First, most of us need to learn proper diaphragmatic breathing, which is *not* belly breathing. Then just sit still without any "cosmic" sounds or timer-apps and bring awareness to the breath. Force nothing, just observe. Calmness and relaxation go hand in hand with letting go and surrender.
by surfingdino | 2025-06-07 07:01:43+00:00
> just how loud the expectations around AI have become, especially among non-technical folks.

This. It's bordering on mass madness. I am taking 2-4 calls a week from "two guys from ..." with mad ideas and unrealistic expectations of what it takes to build and maintain an AI product. I've seen it with early internet rush, Web 2.0, and crypto before.
by genocidicbunny | 2025-06-07 07:04:07+00:00
The article isn't meant to imply that only programmers would believe these. It's just a little niche of 'Falsehoods that Programmers believe about XYZ' sort of articles that became popular because programmers tend to write software that ends up interacting with real world systems that have edge cases many programmers would not consider if they're not dealing with the problem space for a while.
by vaxman | 2025-06-07 07:05:02+00:00
It seems likely that the Pentagon will force SpaceX to merge with another company, which should be good for Tesla and Boring, but sad for his Mars dream.

As for DOGE, Trump has a couple options. He can shut it down and blame Musk, or he can let it keep running against the advice of his team. After DOGE is gone, they will be able to get a warrant and start looking for copies of the data. The first place to look is X.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-06-07 07:05:37+00:00
> just move the interior

Nope. It's a model-specific, totally custom redo of all of the wiring with lots of extra stuff. And, the 2 Boeing VC-25Bs will be ready before this "gift" ever will be.

It's also not the point because the point is exploiting the office of POTUS for personal gain.
by JustinCS | 2025-06-07 07:06:29+00:00
This isn't really true, everyone has a different basal metabolic rate, and effectiveness with absorbing calories from food can vary as well. Even small differences can add up to large effects, the difference between being at net-zero, or having caloric surplus or deficit every day.

That said, in practice it may be reasonable advice on average, but there's also a problem where it's not very practical to eat the "same" calories as someone else, unless they are together with you all the time.