MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwaway664786 | 2025-06-13 15:48:28+00:00
C++ is one of the fastest languages to compile*, assuming you aren't doing silly stuff like abusing templates. It just gets a bad rep because actual, real-world, massive projects are written in C++. Like, yeah, no wonder Chromium build times aren't spectacular, but I assure you that they'd be much, much worse if it was written in Rust. Pointing and scoffing at it when there's nothing written in Rust that we can even compare it to is just intellectually dishonest.

* It's not beating interpreted languages any time soon, but that's not really a fair comparison.
by fencepost | 2025-06-13 15:48:49+00:00
Coming to this a day late, but what immediately jumped to mind was David Seah's "Task Order Up" https://davidseah.com/node/the-task-order-up/ system.

My biggest concern (besides "following through with this? hollow laugh") is when you're not always working in the same place - either hybrid or going to customer sites.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-06-13 15:48:57+00:00
In my sub-field (embedded systems), I don't see it. There are companies that see the value of 40 years of experience. (And there are plenty that don't...)

But the vibe I'm hearing lately is that junior engineers can't get jobs, because AI. I don't know if that reflects the reality (I haven't been trying to find a job as a junior in quite a while), but people are complaining about that these days.
by kerkeslager | 2025-06-13 15:49:08+00:00
> This kind of rationalistic bullshit is exactly what I make it my mission to rail against on HN. Speaking in a general sense can only be done well from an intuititionist perspective.

The terms "rationalist" and "institutionalist" you're using have too many different meanings in different contexts for this to be a meaningful set of sentences. Care to define your terms or use different ones so I can tell what you're talking about?

> My original post on this garnered 25 upvotes, quite above average these days.

I do not care how popular a wrong idea is. This is especially true on HN, where the focus on profit over humans has led to extremely harmful ideologies becoming popular.

> All I was doing was committing to the bit.

So this was supposed to be a joke? It was pretty unfunny.
by mopsi | 2025-06-13 15:49:39+00:00
It's pretty common for the media to misreport things at first, especially when two similar events happen nearby. Both dams are part of the Kyiv reservoir, and it's easy to mistake one for the other when they're both referred to simply as a "Kyiv reservoir dam".

The point remains: there are two different dams, one south of Kozarovychi, which was blown up by Ukraine to flood the Irpin river valley wetlands that were drained in the 1960s; the other east of Vyshhorod, still standing despite multiple Russian attacks, and posing a danger to Kyiv if destroyed.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Kozarovychi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv_Hydroelectric_Power_Plant
by IAmBroom | 2025-06-13 15:50:54+00:00
I think, as always, the real issue is "How much damage is done?".

Smoking a cigarette increases the chance of cancer in those around me. Multiply by the number of smokers.

Making a new coal-burning plant causes cancer and death by emphysema in those around it.

Farting increases global warming, which increases the chance of skin cancer in the world.

Each of those has a net amount of harm (which we can only attempt to quantify), and takes a certain amount of political and physical/economic effort to rectify (which in the case of coal plants, includes alternative types).

So, yes, is this a big deal, overall, or a fart in the wind?
by scelerat | 2025-06-13 15:50:55+00:00
It seems there's some kind of corollary to what you're saying to when (in the US) we went from three major television networks to many cable networks or, later, when streaming video platforms began to proliferate and take hold -- YouTube, Netflix, etc.: The barriers to entry dropped for creators, and the market fragmented. There is still quality creative content out there, some it as good as or better than ever. But finding it, and finding people to share the experience of watching it with you is harder.

Same could be said of traditional desktop software development and the advent of web apps I suppose.

I guess I'm not that worried, other than being worried about personally finding myself in a technological or cultural eddy.
by zozbot234 | 2025-06-13 15:51:00+00:00
I'll believe that AI is anywhere near as smart as Albert Einstein in any domain whatsoever (let alone science-heavy ones, where the tiniest details can be critical to any assessment) when it stops making stuff up with the slightest provocation. Current 'AI' is nothing more than a toy, and treating it as super smart or "super intelligent" may even be outright dangerous. I'm way more comfortable with the "stochastic parrot" framing, since we all know that parrots shouldn't always be taken seriously.
by 1024core | 2025-06-13 15:51:15+00:00
I haven't read the article yet (I'm about to) but I'm curious: what are Yann's views on this? He's been pretty vocal that LLMs won't lead to AGI.

Edit: read the article. No mention of Yann. What kind of journalists are these people, to not get viewpoints from different angles? They might as well just reproduce press releases and be done with it.
by freeone3000 | 2025-06-13 15:52:13+00:00
Without an approved test harness? Doubtful. The exact viewpoint espoused in the article is that we should be deploying, agentically, into production, without testing, with no gating, and rolling back any failures. This is simply not a reasonable process. Current agentic development works much better with firm requirements and a solid test suite. In the future, we will still need the test suite, that is validated deterministically. Deploying bad software is not harmless.
by xedrac | 2025-06-13 15:52:14+00:00
If he was a citizen, then I would definitely have a problem with it. The problem I see is that asylum claims have been so abused recently that they have become an entitlement rather than an exceptional case. I don't know the specifics of this guy, but a judge ruled in his case to not keep him here. Maybe there's a good reason for that, or maybe the judge is sick of what has transpired over the last 4 years and is over compensating for it. I don't know, but I know things can't continue the way the were going during Biden's term.
by commandersaki | 2025-06-13 15:53:28+00:00
I unfortunately did this to two people that were instrumental in my life, except during a manic episode, and while I sprinkled some good stuff in there, I also said some cringe things that I'm really embarrassed about. Rather than try and apologise many years later, I've just let it hang, and hope they appreciated the good things I said and not the odd out of place manic-inspired things.
by const_cast | 2025-06-13 15:53:28+00:00
It’s the same way with garbage collectors.

You can write a naive mark-and-sweep in an afternoon. You can write a reference counter in even less time. And for some runtimes this is fine.

But writing a generational, concurrent, moving GC takes a lot of time. But if you can achieve it, you can get amazing performance gains. Just look at recent versions of Java.
Show HN: I made a ChatGPT wrapper with Notion-like UI
by auden_pierce | 2025-06-13 15:53:32+00:00
Access Gemini Pro, Claude Pro, ChatGPT Pro models and more for $8/month.

Is it another AI/LLMs wrapper?

Yes.

So why should I use it?

Honestly right now there are a lot of other alternatives. But here's why I think it's useful enough to release it in early access:

1. Clear & transparent pricing model. Usage rates is the same is providers api rates + 10%.

2. LLMs responses don't rely on the client connectivity. We use Convex. It's super stable. You can even run multiple chats in parallel.

3. Use it if you like the design :)

4. We have a very clear roadmap.

What's next?

A desktop app (Mac & Windows) that let's you start a conversation from anywhere; in the middle of using excel, powerpoint or email etc. Apple is quite behind on their AI so a seemless way to use better AI models on the mac would be amazing.

Improving model responses and capabilities with tools. Currently, and same with a lot of other AI wrappers, their responses are worse than using the same models on the ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini website. We have a plan to significantly improve this.

Improving up time with openrouter etc.

If you do decide to use it or try it out for free, would love to hear your feedback!
by jacques_chester | 2025-06-13 15:53:43+00:00
This triggered some associations for me.

Strongest was Cells[0], a library for Common Lisp CLOS. The earliest reference I can find is 2002[1], making it over 20 years old.

Second is incremental view maintenance systems like Feldera[2] or Materialize[3]. These use sophisticated theories (z-sets and differential dataflow) to apply efficient updates over sets of data, which generalizes the case of single variables.

The third thing I'm reminded of is Modelica[4], a language where variables are connected by relations (in the mathematical sense). So while A = B + C can update A on when B or C change, you also can update just A and B, then find out what C must have become.

[0] https://cells.common-lisp.dev

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20021216222614/http://www.tilton...

[2] https://www.feldera.com

[3] https://materialize.com

[4] https://modelica.org
by jasonthorsness | 2025-06-13 15:53:56+00:00
I observed engineers at all ages at many levels and roles (manager vs. IC) at Microsoft. To the point of us having retirement parties. I am sure ageism is real but part of the meme of "no software engineers over 40" is just the population curve of developers making them less common. And probably there's something broken with the recruiting pipelines.
by tombh | 2025-06-13 15:54:12+00:00
Thank you.

Windows is supported, I've tested it in Windows Terminal and Powershell. I removed it that issue from the release plan because not all the subtasks are finished yet. And more broadly speaking I just haven't had much feedback from Windows users. For example I haven't managed to get GPU passthrough working in my Windows VM so haven't actually been able to test shaders yet.
by setr | 2025-06-13 15:55:37+00:00
I’m still not clear that this actually a problem. If they overbuild more expensive housing, isn’t the inevitable result that they’ll have to eventually undersell it? There’s only so many wealthy persons, and no matter how fancy the house is I only have so much money to spend.

So in the long run, I’d expect that developers are really funneling money into the lower class by overbuilding upper class housing, when they eat the losses on their poor planning.

I’m also fairly positive a 30-year old upper middle class home makes for a fairly good starter home
by sokoloff | 2025-06-13 15:55:39+00:00
> Treating a person as part of a group is the problem.

Yes, but it's efficient and effective in a large number of cases.

Those with no programming experience is a group. Those who just graduated a CS program is a group. Fresh bootcamp grads are a group. People with 5+ years of experience with your tech stack are a group.

Is there someone with no programming experience who would turn out to be great? Of course; none of us were born with programming experience, but most people are practical enough to not bat an eye when we use past experience as a proxy to quickly pre-filter the possible candidate pool.
by cometapi | 2025-06-13 15:55:53+00:00
As AI systems like ChatGPT become integral to customer service, content creation, and personal assistance, users demand interactions that feel natural, empathetic, and personalized. Recent updates—such as ChatGPT’s “Custom Instructions” feature and enhancements to its Advanced Voice Mode—empower users to fine-tune the AI’s tone, style, and emotional expressiveness. Understanding these tools, alongside proven prompt-engineering techniques, is key to unlocking a more human-like conversational experience.
by ericyd | 2025-06-13 15:55:56+00:00
Valid questions. For me it's two things:

1) sometimes hooks are configured on commit, and I prefer to have a very quick and lightweight commit action. If I'm changing branches sometimes I'll commit WIP changes so I can easily come back to it later. I know git stash accomplishes a very similar functionality but it's just a preferred workflow.

2) I don't like the feedback I get from git hooks when committing in the VS Code interface. For example, we have a "lint" hook that runs on pre-push. When it fails, I have to run "lint" manually in my terminal anyway to actually see the errors, because VS Code doesn't show me the actual errors. I believe the hook results are available in some other tab or something but I haven't bothered to learn it.

Both of these are just personal preferences, and maybe a little bit of resistance to learning new workflows. I don't consider myself a purist about it and I've never argued about it at work but hopefully this sheds a little light on my perspective.

Edit: regarding the "push and pray" approach, I personally don't do that, I'll run it locally first, I just prefer to run it myself rather than via a hook.
Show HN: Hand-controlled arpeggiator, drum machine, and audio reactive visuals
by getToTheChopin | 2025-06-13 15:56:30+00:00
This is a demo video showing a hand-controlled arpeggiator, drum machine, and audio reactive visualizer

Runs in real-time on the web, using a laptop webcam

Created with threejs, rosebud AI, mediapipe computer vision, and tone.js

Work in progress live demo: https://rosebud.ai/p/f8f8cd80-1f68-466a-9da2-09cc0c354f45

Next I want to add new synth sounds and find an easy gesture to change the drum patterns

Any feedback would be appreciated!
by georgeecollins | 2025-06-13 15:57:06+00:00
Just wondering, was the issue not enough job hunters using the site or was the issue that not enough companies wanted to post listings. If the latter, I would guess that lots of people in tech recognize the problem, but not many companies (sincerely) want to do anything about it for all the reasons people here will give: worries about salary expectations, worries about availability to work long hours, less experienced people feeling uncomfortable managing more experienced people.
by elevaet | 2025-06-13 15:57:56+00:00
If you're asking me personally, it's because I don't have any problems with eating too much sugar so I would never want to introduce an artificial sweetener into my diet when it carries potential strange health risks.

I think people get hung up on finding sugar substitutes when the root is eating sweet things constantly. You don't have to eat and drink sweet all the time. Many modern diets (not just n. Amer) are totally overindexed on sweetness.

Drink water, eat good foods, enjoy a bit of jam on your toast or whatever here and there and get lots of exercise and you'll be fine. You don't need aspartame and xylitol and stevia to be healthy.
by cAtte_ | 2025-06-13 15:58:00+00:00
they're not asking for a structural typing overhaul, just a way to make ad-hoc anonymous types with named fields and pass them around. a lot of times with tuple return types you're left wondering what that random `usize` is supposed to represent, so having names for it would be very convenient. i don't see why, under the hood, it couldn't just be implemented the exact same way as current tuple return types
by rootnod3 | 2025-06-13 15:58:17+00:00
I would wager that it will get better soon. Once the LLM/Agent hype has died down and a few years of junior developers went down the drain untrained and unmentored, the demand for experienced seasoned developers will rise again.

This is not to dismiss LLMs entirely, but they always get touted as “they can do ABC, as long as an experienced dev reviews the output”. And with LLMs hindering the growth of juniors in one way or another, I can definitely see a market for “senior” developers down the road.
by aseipp | 2025-06-13 15:58:28+00:00
Yeah, pretty excited about this one even though it seems minor. A paper and talk by the author of this particular feature from ML2024, too:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7ZVne8eQE

- https://tyconmismatch.com/papers/ml2024_labeled_tuples.pdf
by tguvot | 2025-06-13 15:58:29+00:00
Actually innocent people do avoid trials. As sometime trials lead even to death sentences of innocent people.

Prosecutor manipulated icc rules and at time of filing was already known that evidence that he shows is wrong and icc still issued warrants. Why would anyone submit to such organization volunteerly ?

And as known now, he rushed warrants and cancelled scheduled arrival to Israel to see facts on the ground in order to protect himself from sexual harassment allegations
by filleokus | 2025-06-13 15:58:39+00:00
Something similar again is my little tool hemlis [0]

It uses Shamir's secret sharing algorithm to generate shares where the private key is split in n shares with k needed to reconstruct it. The bytes are encoded as word on a PDF (either 'burnt in' or written manually with pen to minimise the risk of storing them on printers etc).

That way you can spread the risk of loosing the physical key, while still maintaining some assurance that e.g your friends can run away with the key (or be compelled to hand it over to some threat actor).

[0]: https://github.com/filleokus/hemlis
by sdegutis | 2025-06-13 15:59:53+00:00
> I often feel there's still an imbalance. I feel like I owe something more

Debt is related to value, which is inherently subjective. In nature, nothing reproducable is one yard long, so we create something and call it a yard, and that first thing becomes the standard. The same is true economically; there's no way to measure what one loaf of bread is inherently worth. Even the time and resources needed to produce it vary depending on countless circumstances. A man with a bread factory will have a much easier time producing one loaf than a homeless man.

The same is true for pain. What's as trivial as a small papercut to one person may be overwhelmingly traumatic to another person, and another can handle losing a limb as easily as losing a pen. Countless variable psychological circumstances prevent us from making any true measurement of debt.

But justice requires that we try our best and move on. So we create economies out of barter and then gold and then bills and then credit. Or we create justice systems that are constantly flowing and changing in their understanding of right and wrong, and also value and loss.

It may be that some people who helped you had no difficulty. I do remember a teacher telling us once to be careful of what we say, because we never know which things we say will stick with someone forever with deep profoundness. Which goes to show that a small off the cuff comment has the very real potential to contribute toward making someone's life significantly better or significantly worse, yet the comment took almost no thought or effort. It cost little.

There's a moment in a play written by Karol Wojtyla in the 1940s, where Adam Chmielowski asks Madame Helena what it costs her to play Ophelia or Lady MacBeth. She replies, "in a way, it costs me all my life. It is a strange ransom; every time I pay it all over again."

I have met many people who are convinced that they have been wronged so grievously that the offender must pay every last penny they have or ever will make, and suffer every second of this life as much as possible, and they hope Hell exists purely so that the offender's suffering may not be relieved by the most torturous death imaginable. Such a person will never be satisfied or happy.

For the little it's worth, my recommendation is to repay people with what good value you justly and reasonably estimate that you owe them for the good they have done to you, and be done with it. If they consider it too much or too little, accomodate them a little, but only within reason. Inversely, if anyone has wronged you, consider their debt paid to you already, since this costs you nothing, whereas exacting justice is tiresome and restless. Besides, forgiving someone's debt to you gives them encouragement to improve, whereas exacting it discourages them and puts them on the defense. That's not to say you shouldn't insist that society as a whole have justice also, for example by calling the police when a legitimate crime has occurred to you or someone else. I'm only talking about the debt in context of two humans.
by mindtricks | 2025-06-13 16:00:11+00:00
This is basically ageism. It's not accurate and should be coached out. Flip the question for a 25 year old:

* Will they be on on-call or out partying with their friends? * Are they committed to the work or will they hop to another company once trained? * Are they able to work within our codebase or just jump to the next hot thing?

These types of questions are ridiculous for both sides.
by IAmBroom | 2025-06-13 16:00:20+00:00
You two are talking about different meanings of "time".

Traveling 5,000 LY at 0.5 c will cause you the spaceship pilot to age 20,000 years. It's non-relativistic, inside that inertial frame. Clock second hands still sweep slow but noticeable circles.

Meanwhile, everyone outside of the spaceship is happening FAST, by your observations. You'll see stars turn red and go supernova.
by mixmastamyk | 2025-06-13 16:00:31+00:00
It likely still exists but the economy for software dev is so bad as to not be a major factor.

In other words, it’s not ageism when one can’t even get an interview in the first place. Assuming you’ve kept your resume concise and removed education dates, etc. Which I have for the last twenty years or so, since the turn of the century! cough
by awkii | 2025-06-13 16:00:35+00:00
What the author touches on with before and after "declarative thinking" is largely applicable to all Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) workflows, and not just signals. They are 100% correct that there is a mental shift. Yes, you can use magic to implicitly declare your DAGs with signals. You can also be really explicit with dependencies.

DAG-based workflows incur a cost in terms of complexity, but there are a few advantages to using DAGs instead of sequential.

1. Parallelism becomes inherently built-in

2. It's easier for a new developer to understand the direct dependencies of a node on other nodes (compared to sequential). Sometime in the future, a developer may want to split off a task or move it up/downstream of other tasks.

3. Fault tolerance & recovery becomes easier. Just because 1 step fails, doesn't mean that the whole workflow must come to a halt.
by dudeinhawaii | 2025-06-13 16:00:57+00:00
I'm curious how you're prompting. I've performed this sort of dramatic update in both one-shot (Gemini 2.5/o3) and Leader/Agent (ask 2.5/o3 for a detailed roadmap) and then provide that to Claude to execute as an agent.

I find the key is being able to submit your entire codebase to the API as the context. I've only had one situation where the input tokens were beyond o3's limit. In most projects that I work with, a given module and all relevant modules clocks in around 50-100k tokens.

When calling via API, it also means you want to provide the full documentation for the task if it's a new API, etc. This is where the recent o3 price decrease is a godsend.
by j_heffe | 2025-06-13 16:01:20+00:00
I think the general resistance from older devs comes from the velocity of software in the past decade. I just connected with a former manager I worked with at IT services from my university and we talked about how crazy tech has moved since my time working there. I had the privilege of working on the data center before the university moved to AWS. The entire backend was written in pure C, running on BSD. We had monitoring scripts written in Perl before getting a contract with Splunk. My manager worked on the design of the distributed file system for the university, and is still an active contributor to the distro. It wasn't the greatest system, but it sure was cool. I'd be a little salty too if some MBA came in and said, "we're moving to AWS, Okta, Workday, and Splunk. And oh by the way, we have to rewrite the system in node.js, and these interns are going to do it. Have fun!"