MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by uncircle | 2025-06-20 06:25:47+00:00
Not sure about C++ devs, but Erlang/Elixir are great to handle parsing of protocols, with its implementation of pattern matching. Also, makes the code much cleaner because pattern matching basically eliminates most branching and thus depth of the code base.

The let it crash philosophy allows you to ignore most corner cases with the knowledge that, if they are encountered or a cosmic ray flips a bit, the crash is localised to a single client. I have worked with Elixir almost a decade at this point, and I have never seen an unexpected downtime of the apps I deployed. Aside of maintenance and updates, they all have 100% uptime. How cool is that?

This is how I sell it to clients. “Will you be using Python, Go?” Me: “What about Elixir and the promise that your service won’t ever crash? And you get cool dashboards with it.” Them: “Sold.”

I wish there was a systems language that allows you to pattern match on structs and enums, and in function signatures like Elixir
by Bouncingsoul1 | 2025-06-20 06:27:11+00:00
I'm not sure which point you are trying to make with the bikes. For road racing the UCI quite famously sets quite strict standards. For "normal" use, if you live within the US or EU will also have some standards (mostly conserning road saftey). Of course you may cherry pick some exceptions, but IMO this doesn't drive the point.
by semi-extrinsic | 2025-06-20 06:27:19+00:00
> then even small probabilities of catastrophic events wiping out humanity yield enormous negative expected value. Therefore, nothing can produce greater positive expected value than preventing existential risks—so working to reduce these risks becomes the highest priority.

This is the logic of someone who has failed to comprehend the core ideas of Calculus 101. You cannot use intuitive reasoning when it comes to infinite sums of numbers with extremely large uncertainties. All that results is making a fool out of yourself.
by somsak2 | 2025-06-20 06:29:15+00:00
> At smoothbrains.net, we hold as self-evident the right to put whatever one likes inside one’s body

appreciate seeing this. I've long identified as someone that's much more muscular than I have been in the past. it's interesting how steroid use for this subset is seen as so different from that same use in the gender dysphoria subset.
by Mikhail_Edoshin | 2025-06-20 06:29:31+00:00
I wrote a moderate-size project (about 10K LOC) in literate programming with a self-made tool. I also read a couple books written in this manner, such as "C interfaces and implementations" by D. Hanson.

I would not say it is a good way. The true thing is that code cannot be self-documented, thus documentation is necessary. But literate documentation is not the right way to do it.

First, it is too crafty. The good documentation should be formal and have a definite standard structure that is repeated across all similar projects. It also should have an encyclopedia-like form of short standalone pieces interlinked into a bigger whole so you can start anywhere instead of reading it from start to end.

Second, it is too programmatic. It has real code. But real code is not good to describe what is important. Try porting METAFONT to something else. METAFONT code is fully documented. In Pascal. And you want to draw it with JavaScript. It would be way more helpful to describe these algorithms without tying them to Pascal or any other specific notation. And then, once they are described in this form, add a document that maps them to a Pascal implementation.
by hobofan | 2025-06-20 06:30:13+00:00
> You add some logic or filters so that the user can only query their own data, or other data they have permission to access.

What you are talking about is essentially only row level security (which is important for tenant seperation), while in the case of integrating external service providers, you column level security is a more important factor.

> I know LLMs can be scary, but this is the same problem that any ORM or program that handles user data would deal with.

In most other progams you don't directly plug your database full of PII to an external service provider.

In most other programs you don't have that same problem because the data takes a straight path from DB -> server -> user.

The README repeats an example that makes the user's email available for an agent to query (enabling PII leakage), setting a bad precedent in a space that's already chock-full of vibe coders without any concern about data privacy.
by defrost | 2025-06-20 06:30:58+00:00
A page of written text you mean?

Likely a text editor or some web publishing tool.

All of which raises a real question about your question and all your other recent "questions" - https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=DinoNuggies45

is this just AI output generated to apear engaged while launching YetAnother beachhead account to gang upvote submissions, influence voting, etc.
by nialse | 2025-06-20 06:34:05+00:00
In five to ten years, when LLMs have stabilized, mapping them straight onto hardware will probably make sense. With today’s processes a hundred billion parameters might fit onto a single silicon wafer using ~1.5 bit precision implemented directly in logic gates. Using higher precision raises the gate count exponentially, so it makes more sense to keep the weights in memory and reuse shared compute blocks for the math for now. We need to get the ultra low precision LLMs working for the future though.
by GianFabien | 2025-06-20 06:34:54+00:00
I've lost count of the number of clients/projects where I had to implement double-entry ledgers. The surprising thing is that no two were the same. Almost in every case there were some specifics that were novel. And trying to determine the current balance of an account when all you have is thousands of prior transactions is tedious at best. In the old days, there was a process called closing off which was effectively a checkpoint in time. The most convoluted example I suffered through was a ledger handling multiple currencies with a mixture of spot and forward contract exchange rates.
by mrcarrot | 2025-06-20 06:35:25+00:00
> The POST in the README is going to send the params in the request body "url form encoded" like a form in a web page.

Is there a different POST request in the readme or are you saying that this example is going to send the "user" and "password" params in the request body?

> POST https://example.org/login?user=toto&password=1234

That seems really surprising to me - how would you then send a POST request that includes query string parameters? The documentation on form parameters [1] suggests there's an explicit syntax for sending form-encoded request parameters

[1]: https://hurl.dev/docs/request.html#form-parameters
by naruhodo | 2025-06-20 06:38:01+00:00
I've seen the same study reported in non-science media today as well.

As is established tradition, the scientists did a meta-analysis of studies that did not control for method of administration. (Your second link - healthline - notes that: "There was no delineation in the analysis, however, on the risks of smoking cannabis compared to ingesting it."). I have yet to see any evidence that edibles or dry-herb vaporisers have the same harms as smoking.

I have absolutely no problem with believing that smoking cannabis is harmful. There is clearly value in warning people about smoking cannabis. However, I would like to see some nuance around method of administration. I will continue to treat my health issues with oil-based tinctures and the occasional bit of dry-herb vaped flower.
by speedgoose | 2025-06-20 06:38:38+00:00
My favourite one is 10.3 Panther with the mix of aqua and brushed metal. 10.4 Tiger is similar but it has a glossy top menu bar that didn’t age well in my opinion. 10.5 Leopard has the fancy cheesy 3D dock, transparent top menu bar, and the more modern gradients. It looked great at the time but gradients aren’t as cool as brushed metal and aqua.

Everything after is a bit boring.
by pipeline_peak | 2025-06-20 06:39:01+00:00
This article reads like something Vice published in 2012. Quite honestly, I only made it 1/3 through. We’ve all been to those glass case dispensaries by now. The world of weed isn’t that new and exciting anymore, c’mon guys…

They seemed to discuss reducing as much of the plant as possible to make something less variable, but smoking has gotten so many improvements what about edibles?

Just make a THC capsule that works whenever I take it, cumulatively if possible.

Not lousy gummies that I can only take once in a 24 hour cycle as my tolerance skyrockets. Followed by a hangover effect caused by as little as 10 mg.

Those current gummies, if my dosage isn’t enough and I take more later (low and slow), the second dose never quite catches up to the first one. It’s just one big non euphoric haze.

I’ve tried sublingual RSO, tinctures, and edibles. The current world of non smokable weed needs a lot of fundamental changes. It’s almost like edibles are stuck in the 70’s era of pot brownies but they reduced it down to a gummy.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-06-20 06:39:16+00:00
I don't disagree with the overall point you're trying to make. However, I'm very familiar with the type of project that is (seeing as I have implemented a similar one at work 5 years ago) so I can answer some of your questions regarding "How does one arrive at such architecture".

> Why do you think you need containers to run a handler?

You don't, but plenty of people don't care and ask for this shit. This is probably another way of saying "buzzword-driven" as people ask for "buzzwords". I've heard plenty of people say things like

We're looking for a container native platform We're not using containers yet though. We were hoping we can start now, and slowly containerize as we go

or

I want the option to use containers, but there is no business value in containers for me today. So I would rather have my team focus on the code now, and do containers later

These are actual real positions by actual real CTOs commanding millions of dollars in potential contracts if you just say "ummm, sure.. I guess I'll write a Dockerfile template for you??"

> Why do you think you need a full blown cluster orchestrating containers just to run a function?

To scale. You need to solve the multi-machine story. Your system can't be a single node system. So how do you solve that? You either roll up your sleeves and go learn how Kafka or Postgres does it for their clusters or you let Kubernetes most of that hardwork and deploy your "handlers" on it.

> Does that make sense to you?

Well... I don't know. These types of systems (of which I have built 2) are extremely wasteful and bullshit by design. A design that there will never be a shortage of demand for.

It's a really strange pattern too. It has so many gotchas on cost, waste, efficiency, performance, code organization, etc. You always look and whoever built these things either has a very limited system in functionality, or they have slowly reimplemented what a "Dockerfile" is, but "simpler" you know. it's "simple" because they know the ins and outs of it.
by MASNeo | 2025-06-20 06:39:33+00:00
Thank you. That’s very comprehensive feedback. I can relate to many of what you say. I understand that unitree does come with a version that has an SDK, so using that might be permissible in T&S. The pricing I could imagine change.

My most valuable takeaway is that there isn’t strong conviction that these can do the tasks required. Leaving essentially just entertainment..
by FeepingCreature | 2025-06-20 06:39:48+00:00
I think they use "aptitude tests" or "personality tests" that are at least packaged up to look relevant to the job, not direct naked IQ tests? I can't offhand find companies using actual IQ tests in hiring.

And if you're saying "well those are just repackaged IQ tests, so doesn't it count", then 1. it sure seems like IQ tests are illegal then, but 2. it also seems like they're so useful that companies are trying to smuggle them in anyway?
by Too | 2025-06-20 06:40:19+00:00
Yeah. I can't get the amount of hate seen here either. It's super natural to read and has very few concepts to learn. Just resources, lists, sets, dictionaries, variables, ternary operator, function calls and templates. Paired with a LSP and syntax highlighting it gets even easier to see the boundaries between code and variables. The two different ways to write dicts are a bit strange and foreach has some gotchas but honestly not a big deal. Especially not when put in comparison to YAML which has nothing even close and even more invisible footguns. Seeing comments like "it does not have if-statements". Duh, it's not imperative, for many good reasons. Not understanding that yeah it's clearly a skills issue.
by gmac | 2025-06-20 06:40:46+00:00
100% agree on the unreliability of older Mac OS. In the late 90s my university computer room offered a mix of Mac and Windows machines, and I only ever took a Mac if that was all that was free, because there was a good chance it would at some point show you a sad Mac face alongside a cutesy and uninformative crash message, while losing the essay you’d half-written (or, hopefully, only the unsaved changes).
by wahern | 2025-06-20 06:41:28+00:00
Reminds me of the paper, "Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology": https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/cognitive-bias/2016-jussim....

TL;DR: Group stereotypes, at least on their face, tend to be quite accurate. It's the implications people draw from or apply to them that can be problematic.
by lisper | 2025-06-20 06:41:29+00:00
> Why can't that observation be taken into account?

Of course it can be. I'm saying that AFAICT it generally isn't.

> rationalism requires certain prerequisites before it can reliably out compete other approaches

Yes. And one of those, IMHO, is explicit recognition that rationalism does not triumph simply because it is rational, and coming up with strategies to compensate. But the rationalist community seems too hung up on things like malicious AI and Roko's basilisk to put much effort into that.
by dijit | 2025-06-20 06:44:37+00:00
Nothing wrong with toys, they’re meant to be played with.

If you deployed this to production though, the problem is not that it’s a toy: its you not understanding what technical trade offs they are making to give you an easy environment.

I can tell you’re defensive though, might be good to learn what I mean instead of trying to ram a round peg into a square hole.
by xenodium | 2025-06-20 06:47:57+00:00
Emacs org babel is super handy and fun. Sometime ago, I took a peek at one of the supported languages to see if I could get Objective-C working. It was fairly straightforward. Since then, I added SwiftUI, LLMs, and Dall-E babel support.

- https://xenodium.com/ob-swiftui-updates

- https://github.com/xenodium/ob-dall-e-shell

- https://github.com/xenodium/ob-chatgpt-shell

- https://xenodium.com/org-babel-objective-c-support
Ask HN: What Agent should I build next? Looking for ideas
by Arindam1729 | 2025-06-20 06:48:35+00:00
Hey folks,

I've been working on Awesome AI Apps, where I'm exploring and building practical examples for anyone working with LLMs and agentic workflows.

It started as a way to document the stuff I was experimenting with, basic agents, RAG pipelines, MCPs, a few multi-agent workflows, but it’s kind of grown into a larger collection.

Right now, it includes 25+ examples across different stacks:

- Starter agent templates - Complex agentic workflows - MCP-powered agents - RAG examples - Multiple Agentic frameworks (like Langchain, OpenAI Agents SDK, Agno, CrewAI, and more...)

You can find them here: https://github.com/arindam200/awesome-ai-apps

I'm also playing with tools like FireCrawl, Exa, and testing new coordination patterns with multiple agents.

Honestly, just trying to turn these “simple ideas” into examples that people can plug into real apps.

Now I’m trying to figure out what to build next.

If you’ve got a use case in mind or something you wish existed, please drop it here. Curious to hear what others are building or stuck on.

Always down to collab if you're working on something similar.
by immibis | 2025-06-20 06:48:49+00:00
That's really interesting because when someone uses one definition of neonazi as anyone who supports the extermination of a race, as well as getting obsessed with transgenderism and so on, they get shouted down with "no, Nazis are members of Hitler's party" but now someone is defining them as members of Hitler's party and you're shouting them down by saying the modern definition is different.
by energy123 | 2025-06-20 06:49:12+00:00
> maybe we don't have a full grasp of the implications of AI. Maybe it's actually going to be rather benign and more boring than expected

Part of the concern is there's no one "AI". There is frontier that keeps advancing. So "it" (the AI frontier in the year 2036) probably will be benign, but that "it" will advance and change. Then the law of large numbers is working against you, as you keep rolling the dice and hoping it's not a 1 each time. The dice rolls aren't i.i.d., of course, but they're probably not as correlated as we would like, and that's a problem as we keep rolling the dice. The analogy would be nuclear weapons. They won't get used in the next 10 years most likely, but on a 200 year time-frame it's a big deal as far as species-level risks go, which is what they're talking about here.
by overfeed | 2025-06-20 06:51:16+00:00
> it won't include the cruft that we now know was bad cruft.

There's no such thing as "bad cruft" - all cruft is are features you don't use but are (or were) in all likelihood critical to someone else's workflow. Projects transform from minimal and lightning fast, to bloated, one well-reasoned-PR at a time; someone will try to use a popular project and figure "this would be perfect, if only it had feature X or supported scenario Y", multiplied by a few thousand PRs.
by farseer | 2025-06-20 06:51:18+00:00
Its becoming more difficult to "to generate a ton of money" as a NEW dev. Job market isn't so hot right now and and the low hanging SaaS fruit mostly picked. However for the observant, new problems pop up all the time that need solving. The advice is to listen, observe and most importantly meet people from a lot of different industries to hear about their problems and existing solutions.
by com2kid | 2025-06-20 06:51:27+00:00
> they're discounting the people around them heavily compared to other people

This statement of yours makes no sense.

EAs by definition are attempting to remove the innate bias that discounts people far away by instead saying all lives are of equal worth.

>turning them into a math problem that assigns no special responsibility to the people around you

All lives are equal isn't a math problem. "Fuck it blow up the foreigners to keep oil prices low" is a math problem, it is a calculus that the US government has spent decades performing. (One that assigns zero value to lives outside the US.)

If $100 can save 1 life 10 blocks away from me or 5 lives in the next town over, what kind as asshole chooses to let 5 people die vs 1?

And since air travel is a thing, what the hell does "close to us" mean?

For that matter, from a purely selfish POV, helping lift other nations up to become fully advanced economies is hugely beneficial to me, and everyone on earth, in the long run. I'm damn thankful for all the aid my country gave to South Korea, the number of scientific advances that have come out of SK damn well paid for any tax dollars my grandparents paid on many orders of magnitude times over.

> It can be hard to say exactly why in words, but that doesn't make it less true.

This is the part where I shout racism.

Because history has shown it isn't about people being far or close in distance, but rather in how those people look.

Americans have shot down multiple social benefit programs because, and these are what people who voted against those programs directly said was their reasons "white people don't want black people getting the same help white people get."

Whites in America have voted, repeatedly, to keep themselves poor rather than lift themselves and black families out of poverty at the same time.

Of course Americans think helping people in Africa is "weird".
by tatetian16 | 2025-06-20 06:51:28+00:00
> if an unprivileged task is unsafe, it's still unprivileged. Meanwhile the unsafe code that requires extra verification...

I am sorry that the doc is a kind of misleading. I wrote that... The statement need to be interpreted in the context of framekernel. An entire Rust-based framekernel runs in the kernel space but is logically partitioned into the two halves: the privileged OS framework and the de-privileged OS services. Here, "privileged" means safe + unsafe Rust kernel code, whereas "de-privileged" means all safe Rust kernel code. And this is all about the kernel code. Framekernels do not put restrictions on the languages of user-space programs.
by k310 | 2025-06-20 06:53:59+00:00
I don't know how old folks are here, but when I was young, ANY mental problem had a real stigma associated with it. I imagine there was a lot of denial. And there's a whole lot of denial going on these days, even with our higher awareness, and a lot of machismo, much of which is projection. "I'm fine. The other {person, group} is not right"

Projection is pretty rampant.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-06-20 06:55:48+00:00
> What would a Kubernetes 2.0 look like

A lot simpler hopefully. It never really took off but docker swarm had a nice simplicity to it. Right idea, but Docker Inc. mismanaged it.

Unfortunately, Kubernetes evolved into a bit of a monster. Designed to be super complicated. Full of pitfalls. In need of vast amounts of documentation, training, certification, etc. Layers and layers of complexity, hopelessly overengineered. I.e. lots of expensive hand holding. My mode with technology is that if the likes of Red Hat, IBM, etc. get really excited: run away. Because they are seeing lots of dollars for exactly the kind of stuff I don't want in my life.

Leaving Kubernetes 2.0 to the people that did 1.0 is probably just going to lead to more of the same. The people behind this require this to be a combination of convoluted and hard to use. That's how they make money. If it was easy, they'd be out of business.
by anonfordays | 2025-06-20 06:56:05+00:00
>The People, historically, are immigrants. The facts back my argument.

Legal immigrants, that became citizens, historically. The facts back my argument.

>Drops to 5% in the 60's to 80's, maybe that's the cause of your short-term understanding of American history

Drops of illegal immigration to 5% or less in the 60's to 80's, maybe that's the cause of your short-term understanding of American history.

>since in recent memory immigration was quite low (and thus begins the decline of American prosperity at the same time, interesting).

Delusional take. America's prosperity skyrocketed during that timeframe, much more so than the past decade and a half of high illegal immigration.

>Increases back up to 15% in the late 2000's... right as we have historic increases in markers for prosperity (overlay the same chart against the stock market).

Stock market growth != real GDP growth. This exposes your poor understanding of the economy and immigration as a whole. Not to mention the Great Recession.

>We are returning to the proper state of America, as the world's melting pot, and the most successful and prosperous nation on earth as a result.

Ironically yes. Deporting illegal immigrants back to their home countries is the proper state. Democrats importing an underclass of less than legal humans is nothing new to the US.