MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by marcosdumay | 2025-06-03 16:51:09+00:00
Yeah, step 1 is wrong too. The article goes into that.

You can't design an interface based on a partial feature-set, you need full interaction modes specified beforehand. You can't finish the details before you implement it, or even before you test. You can't have a committee of "everyones" to like it before you test.

Combining the steps isn't something "you can do", it's the one way that works.
by SanthoshReddy13 | 2025-06-03 16:51:29+00:00
Location: California, United States Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: Java, Spring Boot, Python, Flask, FastAPI, Angular, React, Node.js, Redis, Apache Spark, PySpark, AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, Docker, GitHub Actions, GraphQL Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JxZE_zs2UxC_jKb7kDr-doRN3DX... Email: msanthoshreddy1308@gmail.com

I’m a software engineer who thrives at the intersection of backend systems, cloud infrastructure, and data engineering. I’ve built and deployed fault-tolerant microservices handling thousands of requests per second, led API integrations that reduced manual operations by 60%, and implemented Spark-based data pipelines that brought down processing time from hours to minutes.

My recent projects include:

A passwordless authentication system using Flask, React, and AWS SES – enhancing UX and improving login conversion by 35%.

An AI-powered job automation tool that scraped job boards, matched roles with resumes using NLP, and auto-applied – automating 80% of my job search.

I’m actively seeking backend-focused Software Engineer roles (Java/Python preferred), or Full-Stack/Platform Engineer roles with strong ownership, system design, and cloud architecture challenges. I'm especially drawn to teams working on developer tooling, AI infra, or data-intensive products.

Let’s build something meaningful.
by anadem | 2025-06-03 16:51:35+00:00
Yes, it's a lovely book and led me to my first paid project over 40 years ago! Using the book I built a Forth to monitor the local water authority systems, with water-level tracking and customer accounting & billing, implemented on a home-brewed network of North Star PCs. Iirc there's a minor bug in one of the base subroutines as written though now I don't remember what it was. But I still have the book :-)
by caycep | 2025-06-03 16:51:47+00:00
I think also the key is - don't call it AI, because it's not. It's LLM assist query parsing and code generation. Semantically, if you call it AI, the public expects a cognitive equivalent to a human which this is not, and from what @tptacek describes, is not meant to be - the reasoning and other code bits to create agents and such seem to be developed specifically for code generation and programming assist and other tasks thereof. Viewed in that lens, the article is correct - it is by all means a major step forward.
by keyringlight | 2025-06-03 16:51:57+00:00
What keeps standing out to me is that windows has been moving away from the PC as Personal Computer model, they've been moving in the direction of a MS prescribed experience of what a device running windows is, with less opportunities to customize it as you want. The trouble for MS is that the ability to run old software is one of windows greatest strengths so they can't really cut off too much without killing the golden goose leaving customers freer to move to another platform, but I think windows would be much more of an appliance if they did cut off that legacy.
by righthand | 2025-06-03 16:52:33+00:00
> Unfortunately, as with the other error handling ideas, this new proposal was also quickly overrun with comments and many suggestions for minor tweaks, often based on individual preferences. Ian closed the proposal and moved the content into a discussion to facilitate the conversation and to collect further feedback. A slightly modified version was received a bit more positively but broad support remained elusive.

> After so many years of trying, with three full-fledged proposals by the Go team and literally hundreds (!) of community proposals, most of them variations on a theme, all of which failed to attract sufficient (let alone overwhelming) support, the question we now face is: how to proceed? Should we proceed at all?

> We think not.
by mystified5016 | 2025-06-03 16:52:37+00:00
Classic windows user dunking on Linux users without even pausing to think if their sick burn is even slightly correct.

Linux has any feature you want if you look for it. Most distributions are a little opinionated on their default config, but nobody is forcing any type of config, program, defaults, or telemetry on you. You're completely and totally free to configure and use your computer in the way you want with absolutely no interference of any kind. You just have to put in a bit of work.

Meanwhile on windows, your defaults are disrespected and reset automatically. Widgets and programs and adware are installed, configured, and all but non-removable by default. Even if you remove them, Microsoft will put them back eventually. Microsoft will reset your default programs, reset your taskbar config to put useless widgets back. And of course let's not forget just how much spying windows does. Even if you try, you can't really remove it all forever.

Stupid Windows users don't even understand they're essentially cattle to Microsoft. Clueless and uninformed Microsoft fanboys cannot comprehend using the comouter you paid for, which Microsoft owns instead of you, in a way that Microsoft hasn't blessed. You don't even understand the concept of freedom
by aanet | 2025-06-03 16:53:14+00:00
I wasn't sure where the author (Patricia) was going with the whole 'GUIs are built >= 2.5x'.. but by the end, I agree.

Discovery is fundamentally different from assembly (as in the 'factory' metaphor). And innovation (= new product product) is fundamentally about discovery (whether product/market fit, or product/user fit). Therefore, new product development is fundamentally an iterative process.

Any org trying to force-fit a 'get it right the first time' mentality on discovery/innovation has discovered (no pun) just how common failure is...
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-03 16:53:21+00:00
> do I trust every possible future permutation of corporation or government indefinitely in the future

People need to learn to do this in government. The party in power switches every 4-8 years. When the other guys get in, you wish you'd done something to limit executive power. Then when you get in again and actually have the power to add some new limits, well, you're the ones in office now, so why would you limit your own power?

Think ahead by more than the end of the quarter. You want subsidiarity and checks and balances to protect yourself from them tomorrow. Is it really so bad that it would also protect them from you today?
by vokhanhan25 | 2025-06-03 16:53:26+00:00
This paper explores a different aspect of the limitations of VLMs compared to the paper VLMs are Blind (https://vlmsareblind.github.io). While in VLMs are Blind, o3 achieved 90% accuracy (https://openai.com/index/thinking-with-images), on similarly easy tasks using the counterfactual images from VLMs are Biased, o3 only reached 18.5%.

This may indicate that while VLMs might possess the necessary capability, their strong biases can cause them to overlook important cues, and their overconfidence in their own knowledge can lead to incorrect answers.
by _flux | 2025-06-03 16:53:49+00:00
I think for this reason TLA+ is—or should be—good for designing systems: it keeps your design as simple as possible :) and it asks you the difficult questions. Sort of a logical rubber duck.

And the best part is, when you implement the spec, it works! At least by design.

It is quite a different task to implement models for existing systems in fine detail. But it can be done, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14301 . This group in particular combined fine and coarse grained models for the checking, allowing to focus the checking performance only on the parts of the system they were interested in.
by johnisgood | 2025-06-03 16:54:17+00:00
How come? You had different experiences? Which LLMs, what prompts? Give me all the details that supports your claim that it is not true. My experiences completely differ from yours, so the way I use it, it is very much true.

That said, it is probably pointless to argue with full-blown AI-skeptics.

People had lots of great and productive-enhancing experiences with LLMs, you did not, great, that does not reflect the tool, it reflects your way of using the tool.

I will just throw it out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44163063 (My AI skeptic friends are all nuts)
by maxwellg | 2025-06-03 16:54:33+00:00
This is the right move for Go. I have grown to really love Go error handling. I of course hated it when I was first introduced to the language - two things that changed that:

- Reading the https://go.dev/blog/errors-are-values blog post (mentioned in the article too!) and really internalizing it. Wrote a moderately popular package around it - https://github.com/stytchauth/sqx

- Becoming OK with sprinkling a little `panic(err)` here and there for truely egregious invalid states. No reason forcing all the parent code to handle nonsense it has no sense in handling, and a well-placed panic or two can remove hundreds of error checks from a codebase. Think - is there a default logger in the ctx?
by gosub100 | 2025-06-03 16:54:44+00:00
I would try a shotgun style subsonic load with an adjustable fin/spoiler system that can be calibrated relative to the range of the target. The projectiles fin would flare out to reduce speed as it approached the target. Then an explosive charge would release a spray of super glue or pancake syrup, or something to gunk up the mechanism or disrupt the airflow on the propeller.
by amiga386 | 2025-06-03 16:54:46+00:00
Jikes also gave massively better error messages than the official Java compiler, from what I remember, and it certainly ran a lot faster on the Amiga (https://aminet.net/package/dev/lang/jikes) than trying to run javac via Kaffe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffe) did.
by cassianoleal | 2025-06-03 16:54:47+00:00
Likewise.

I love coding. I’m not excited by AI coding but I am curious. I find it useful in quite limited ways.

I have recently started an Ansible project where Aider helped me get off the ground and expand a little bit. Then it made a mess out of it so some other day I’ll have to find the time to start over.

It was useful though, and I’ll use some of the bits created by the LLM to kickstart it in anger next time around.
by gspencley | 2025-06-03 16:54:52+00:00
The reason that I personally don't use LLMs was not addressed by the article:

I haven't found a way to use it that makes me develop faster.

The articles talks about "tedious code." If you need to generate a large static value table or something, then OK an LLM might give you a really fast result and cut through the tedium. Most of us were already writing short scripts to do that. I'm open to the possibility that an LLM can do it faster. But it's such a rare requirement that the productivity gains are truly negligible here even if they can. And in those cases, it's obvious what the repetitive task needs to be. I often find myself writing the code by hand to be quicker than coming up with a prompt to get it to write the code that I then need to review for correctness.

The article then mentions scaffolding. Things like "bookkeeping" when it comes to creating and setting up a new repo (whatever he means by that). This is why I have, historically, been a big fan of frameworks and generators. Point being, this is already a solved problem and I haven't found a way to further improve the state of this world with LLMs. LLMs might be an alternate tool that work just as well. But they haven't made my existing daily workflow any faster. Setting up new repos is also something that is done so rarely that even if an LLM netted a 100% increase in efficiency, it wouldn't really impact much.

I am an AI "skeptic" but I'm not a naysayer. I do use LLMs regularly. I just don't use them for developing code because I have yet to find a problem that they solve for me. Don't get me wrong, there are problems that they can solve... I just haven't come across any solutions to previously-unsolved problems. Meaning I can swap an existing solution for an LLM-based one... and it is a valid solution... but I don't observe any increase in productivity from doing so. The existing solution was already working fine.

I am genuinely looking forward to the day when this changes. When I identify a single existing problem without an existing solution that LLMs solve for me when developing software. I just have yet to come across one.
by shoarek | 2025-06-03 16:54:59+00:00
I’ve been digging into the history of football (soccer) and what led people to start clubs that are now massive institutions. From Sporting CP to Real Madrid. As a supporter myself, I wanted to understand the human side of these origin stories: the ambition, identity, and community behind the founding moments. So I built a newsletter and a podcast where I collect and write about inspiring stories from football history. It’s not about match results or modern tactics, but more about the why behind clubs' creation and how football shaped local and national culture. If you’re into the intersection of sport, history, and community, this might be something you’d enjoy. Feedback is welcome.
by lovich | 2025-06-03 16:56:07+00:00
I use https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/ for my IDE which learns on your codebase, so it does end up saving me a ton of time after its learned my patterns and starts suggesting entire classes hooked up to the correct properties in my EF models.

It lets me still have my own style preferences with the benefit of AI code generation. Bridged the barrier I had with code coming from Claude/ChatGPT/etc where its style preferences were based on the wider internets standards. This is probably a preference on the level of tabs vs spaces, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
by johnb231 | 2025-06-03 16:56:32+00:00
We’ve had “internet search bars” (aka web browsers) in Linux since the early 90s. The web started on NeXT/Unix, not Windows.

In terms of desktop environment features there is no comparison. The variety of options and widgets in Linux DE’s extends far beyond the basic shit available in Windows.

It took Windows several decades to get virtual desktops (Windows 11). Linux had that in 1993.
by gmokki | 2025-06-03 16:56:50+00:00
Doesn't the futex2 syscall allow 1 byte futexes on recent kernel?

Double checks. Nope. The api is there and the patch to implement them has been posted multiple times: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241025093944.707639534@infrad...

But the small futex2 patch will not go forward until some users say they want/need the feature
by 00N8 | 2025-06-03 16:57:29+00:00
Are you sure about that? AFAIK effective laser drone defenses are not yet widely deployed proven technology, but I don't think small beam size is a limiting factor. Getting enough power onto the target to disable it is a big challenge, but part of that is fighting the natural tendency of the beam to spread out & be attenuated by the atmosphere - not that the beam affects too small of a spot on the drone.

Having a laser that spreads out to e.g. 30cm radius at 500m is not hard to do if you need an area of effect weapon & can push enough power (ie. your laser is powerful enough, but not so intense that it ionizes the air & blocks itself). Reflections seem like a bigger problem: If the most effective defense includes guys with shotguns &/or there are a lot of unprotected personnel in the area, how do you make sure stray reflections don't end up blinding them?
by arp242 | 2025-06-03 16:57:32+00:00
You need to assign the error to a variable, probably. So it would have to be more something like:

n := strconv.Atoi(s) or |err| { return fmt.Errorf("foo: %w", err) } n := strconv.Atoi(s) or |err| { if !errors.Is(err, pkg.ErrFoo) return fmt.Errorf("foo: %w", err) } }

Just "error" (which shadows the built-in type) won't really work.

I'm just making up syntax here to illustrate the point; doesn't look too brilliant to me. A func might be a bit more "Go-like":

n := strconv.Atoi(s) or func(n int, err error) { return fmt.Errorf("foo: %w", err) }

All of this is kind of a moot point at Robert's blog post says that these proposals won't be considered for the foreseeable future, but IMHO any error handling proposal should continue to treat errors as values, which means you should be able to use fmt.Errorf(), errors.Is(), mylogger.Error(), etc.
by deadbabe | 2025-06-03 16:57:42+00:00
You don’t know the harm you’re inflicting. Some manager will read your comment and conclude that anyone who isn’t reducing tasks that previously took hours or days into a brief 1 hour LLM session is underperforming.

In reality, there is a limit to how quickly tasks can be done. Around here, the size of PRs usually have changes that most people could just type out in under 30 minutes if they knew exactly what to type. However, getting to the point where you know exactly what you need to type takes days or even weeks, often collaborating across many teams and thinking deep about potential long term impacts down the road, and balancing company ROI and roadmap objectives, perhaps even running experiments.

You cannot just throw LLMs at those problems and have them wrapped up in an hour. If that’s what you’re doing, you’re not working on big problems, you’re doing basic refactors and small features that don’t require high level skills, where the bottleneck is mostly how fast you can type.
by MeetingsBrowser | 2025-06-03 16:57:52+00:00
Changing too quickly is a much bigger problem. It may not be ideal, but I think leaning towards being slow makes sense in this context.

Every person/company using Go chose to use it knowing how errors are handled.

Each new way of error handling seems to upset a large number of users, some of which may not have chosen Go had the newer system been in place originally.

If it is impossible to know which choice is correct, at least everyone has some baseline level of acceptance for the status quo.
by Balgair | 2025-06-03 16:58:18+00:00
> Designing a "mostly ChatGPT-proof class" is in my opinion actually rather simple: just be inspired by the German university system:

Now the real question is the costs. In that, can you somehow make this system work at scale with the same profit as before? I know that the German system is a lot different than in the US, including things like tracking in 9th grade and below. But the real question is if the Universities make as much, if not more, cash. Because if the answer is 'no', then it's unlikely to be adopted.

> Oh yeah, I didn't mention yet that if you flunked the same exam typically 3 times (depending on the university), you have "finally failed" (endgültig nicht bestanden), and are not allowed anymore to study the same degree course at every German university.

That is an insanely awesome and clever idea. I love it. It puts real stakes there, if only perceived ones. I imagine that in the US if you flunk out of a major's classes twice or more, the number of students that continue on in that major is probably pretty low already though.
by stevesunderland | 2025-06-03 16:58:49+00:00
SEEKING WORK | USA | Remote

Developer + Designer

I'm a graphic designer and web developer who creates websites, brand identities and marketing material for a variety of companies including startups, agencies and non-profit organizations. In addition to my design skills, I am also a full-stack web developer.

DESIGN: websites, apps, UI/UX, mobile, logos, marketing material, trade show displays, packaging, photo retouching, book covers

DEVELOPMENT: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Vue, Angular, Python, Django, SQL, PHP, Bootstrap, Foundation, REST APIs, Wordpress, Webpack, Jekyll, Hugo

PORTFOLIO: https://sunderland.studio

LINKEDIN: http://linkedin.com/in/stevesunderland

CONTACT: stevesunderland@gmail.com
by Refreeze5224 | 2025-06-03 16:58:51+00:00
I don't really understand this decision. They know from developer surveys that verbose and repetitive error handling is literally the number 1 issue. Seeking the perfection of syntax that everyone agrees on seems to be the enemy of providing some good alternative to the status quo.

Their comment about providing some new syntax and people being forced to use it seems off base to me. It's nice to not have multiple ways of doing things, but having only 2 when it comes to error handling does not seem like a big deal. I imagine people will just use their preference, and a large percentage of people will have a less verbose option if they want it.
by photochemsyn | 2025-06-03 16:59:47+00:00
Let's be honest: majoring in the humanities is the easy way to a college degree and thus attracts people put off by the hard sciences and all the mathematical rigor which can't be offloaded onto an LLM as you do have to solve problems in real time on exams without any external assistance.

If the student's goal at any Ivy League college is to 'meet their partner and their co-founder' then attending social functions where they can expand their networks and meet new candidates for those roles will take precedence over spending three hours diligently studying difficult material for every hour spent in lecture.

Of course, computer science students and others in hard sciences have been gaming the system for decades, with many solutions to take-home programming exercises found in online forums, and there's always the option of paying a tutor to ease the way forward - and LLMs are essentially inexpensive tutors that vastly help motivated students learn material - a key aide when many university-level professors view teaching as an unpleasant burden and devote minimal time and effort to it, with little material preparation and recycling tests from a decade ago that are all archived in fraternity and sorority collections.

The solution to students using LLMs to cheat is obvious - more in-class work, more supervised in-section work, and devaluing take-home assignments - but this means more time and toil for the instructors, who are often just as lazy and unmotivated as the students.

[note the in-person coding interview seems to have been invented by employers who realized anyone could get a CS degree and good grades without being a good programmer via cheating on assignments, and this happened well before LLMs hit the scene]
by westmeal | 2025-06-03 17:00:00+00:00
I used to be a Jehovah's witness when I was younger and I gotta say there sure were a lot of accounts of kids dying because their parents and the jws didn't want blood. Sure they got praised for their steadfastness after the fact but I often wonder how many would still be alive. Not to say blood transfusions are perfect or never cause problems but I mean come on.
by qwertox | 2025-06-03 17:00:04+00:00
I wonder if companies like Wetter Online (from whom we know that they're selling the location data to brokers [0]) or ad service providers which offer libraries do the same.

If it were so, Google should be knowingly be allowing this to happen and be a co-conspirator. I mean, they surveil our devices as if it were their home. Impossible that they're not aware.

[0] https://netzpolitik-org.translate.goog/2025/databroker-files...
by surgical_fire | 2025-06-03 17:00:07+00:00
> The number of secretaries declines after answering machines became more prevalent.

Citation needed

> Catch you in 3 years when whatever happens - happens.

I wish I had 1 euro for whenever crypto shills told me those exact words regarding the inevitably of cryptocurrency replacing actual currency.

Note that I said 1 euro and not 1 of some shitcoint.