MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by elros | 2025-06-05 08:45:21+00:00
When storing data, particularly when stored in a relational model, it's quite often better to make sure the data is properly normalized[0]. However, normalized data in the way that suits the data model might not be the more convenient way to operate on it from the perspective of your domain logic.

Additionally, the data types in your data model are limited by what your data layer supports, but on the domain side you might want to have richer data types.

ORMs make it easier to obtain the data in a shape and in types that are useful to you from a domain model perspective, while still storing the data in a way that's useful for the database side of things.

Example 1:

I want to store Users which have a `name` and `date_of_birth` property in a table. However, when operating on that object in the domain side, I might want to have instances of a User class which might expose a method such as `isOfLegalAge()`, which would let me know whether that user is old enough to, let's say, sign a mortgage contract.

A ORM makes it easier for me to get back an instance of a User class (which can have useful methods), instead of having to operate on a database row structure, which would give me strictly data.

Example 2:

A given Product, which has a `name` and a `price`, might be supplied by a Supplier, which has a `name` and an `location`. When fetching a user from a database, I might want to have an object in a shape such as:

Product { name: string price: number supplier: { name: string location: { city: string country: string } } }

However when I store it, a Product would have a reference to a `supplier_id`, which points to a row in the Supplier table. The supplier's location's city and country would be a city_id and country_id, each of which referencing a row in a City table and a Country table.

So from a data model representation it might look more like this:

Product { id: number name: string supplier_id: number } Supplier { id: number name: string location_id: number } Location { id: number city_id: number country_id: number } City { id: number name: string } Country { id: number name: string }

The ORM would map between these two representations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
by usrbinbash | 2025-06-05 08:45:42+00:00
The core problem is, that chess is essentially a solved game now.

There is no human that can outplay the top chess algorithms. This commodization of top skill, means everyone can afford to play against, and learn from, an entity that is above human skill.

Once this point is achieved, the skill focus dramatically shifts: The better player is the one who can hold and query more data learned from the above-human-skill entity in his human brain. Which, don't get me wrong, is still a beyond-impressive skill at the level of top players, but its not what people really enjoy or mean when they talk about "Chess".

In a very general way, this is a problem that afflicts not just Chess, but all solves games where players have complete information about the game state.
by al_borland | 2025-06-05 08:45:44+00:00
Markdown handles complexity by allowing html to be freely put into the doc. The basics are really easy, and if you need to do something more advanced html exists. Though this can sometimes make readability drop to 0. I ended up doing this for a complex table I wanted in a readme file, and kind of regret it. I have to explain to people on my team how to use preview mode in their editor, or to view it in the repo online. Although that view online does look nice.
by input_sh | 2025-06-05 08:46:10+00:00
If you have a decent GPU or a modern Mac, you can run something like LM Studio (https://lmstudio.ai/) or Ollama (https://ollama.com/), configure the tool such as Cursor to use those models you've downloaded (personally I use Zed.dev), and then everything happens straight on your computer. Responses will be somewhat slower and not as good as state-of-the-art models, but they still can be helpful.

Git host doesn't really make a difference.
Show HN: Heynds – Write Faster – AI Voice and Writing Assistant (Mac/Windows)
by pierremouchan | 2025-06-05 08:46:37+00:00
Hey everyone,

I'm excited to share Heynds, a new desktop app for macOS and Windows (Linux coming soon!) that combines voice dictation with a powerful AI writing assistant to significantly boost your productivity.

First and foremost, I know that many solutions like this already exist, but I needed my own, something faster than all the others, that both integrates speech-to-text and a writing assistant in an all-in-one app.

The core idea is to let you work much faster by: * Voice-to-Text: Speak naturally, and Heynds transcribes your words into perfectly formatted text in real-time. Think of it as dictating emails, reports, or social media posts at 3x the speed of typing (based on studies). * Intelligent AI Writing Assistant: Instantly reformat text, polish your prose, refine messages, summarize content, and generate ideas directly from your voice or typed input. It's designed to help you overcome writer's block and ensure your communication is always clear and impactful. * Universal Compatibility: Heynds works across virtually any application on your desktop – from Slack and Notion to Gmail and even code editors.

For the AI capabilities, we leverage the *Gemini Flash model* and for speech-to-text, the Groq Whisper Large V3 Turbo model. For our "Eternal" lifetime plan, users can even connect their own API keys for full control and transparency over their usage costs.

I'd love for you to try it out! You can test it directly in your browser without any signup or download, or grab the desktop app for Mac or Windows.

Looking forward to your thoughts and feedback!
by bryanrasmussen | 2025-06-05 08:48:17+00:00
legitimate interest is, for example - have some way to identify user who is logged in. So keep email address for logged in users. Have some way to identify people who are trying to get account that have been banned, so have a table of banned users with email addresses for example.

none of these others are legitimate interest. Furthermore combining the data from legitimate interest (email address to keep track of your logged in user) with illegitimate goals such as tracking across services would be illegitimate.
by Y_Y | 2025-06-05 08:48:57+00:00
Quite right it doesnt absolutely protect your privacy. I'd agree that it's full of holes, but I do think it also contains effective provisions which assist with users controlling their data and data which identifies them.

Which courts are influenced by the EU? I don't think it's true of US courts, and courts in EU nations are supposed to be influenced by it, it's in the EU treaties.
by mcv | 2025-06-05 08:48:59+00:00
That's exactly why Magnus is now championing Free Style Chess, originally promoted by Fischer: you randomize the starting position of the pieces, which makes traditional opening theory useless. That cuts away a lot of the memorization and introduces a lot of new creativity.

It's not entirely surprising that both of these world champions saw that as a way to keep the game interesting.

Something else that Magnus sometimes does, even against fellow grandmasters, is play a completely ridiculous opening that's obviously bad. But more importantly, it's different, and all the existing opening theory goes out the window.
by dukeyukey | 2025-06-05 08:49:29+00:00
Worth pointing out that DeepMind was founded in London, the HQ is still here, and so is the founder and CEO. I've lived in North London for 8 years now, there are _loads_ of current-and-former DeepMind AI people here. Now that OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral have offices here the talent density is just going up.

On risk, we're hardly the Valley, but a failed startup isn't a black mark at all. It's a big plus in most tech circles.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-05 08:49:48+00:00
> When dealing with unpredictable real life events there are no guarantees

The guarantee here is that the human isn't obligated to intervene for a moment.

If you call that guarantee impossible, then what about level 4 cars? They guarantee that the human isn't obligated to intervene ever. Are level 4 cars impossible?

Is this a wording issue? What would you say level 4 cars promise/provide? Level 3 cars need to promise/provide the same thing for a limited time. And that time has to be long enough to do a proper transfer of attention.
by elros | 2025-06-05 08:50:08+00:00
In software engineering there's rarely an objective way to answer "better" or "worse", it's more often a question of trade-offs.

An ORM is the choice to trade some performance and a little complexity in exchange for some convenience.

This is of course a simplification, there are other aspects to be considered.

Personally, it seems to me that this is a trade-off which is often valuable.

That being said, it's not necessarily the case that by using an ORM you are not using SQL. There are ORMs that offer you a way to abstract away SQL, others take a mixed approach where you use SQL to define structure and migrations, but use the ORM to manipulate data, for example.

What's more, each ORM has a slightly different set of features, depending on what their authors thought would be better. There's no universal "correct" way to build an ORM.

In some situations the loss of control you get when using an ORM is not worth it, because one could write better queries by hand. In other situations it might lend itself. Also different people will have different experiences and a different skillset, which also leads to different decisions.

It's all about what makes your life easier in terms of building maintainable software in the specific situation you find yourself in.
by anonzzzies | 2025-06-05 08:50:33+00:00
But, we need a future where unlimited inference, in parallel is profitable. It is not: even less than cloud compute (where it is terrible also), when I buy 500 flimflams for $50/mo, what did I buy exactly? As currently it seems to depend on the position of the moon: one time 10 prompts make what I want, sometimes 100 prompts keep looping over the same issue unable to fix it (like a typescript type issue which takes me 1 seconds, llms, the flagship ones, can easily burn 100 prompts and not fix it). I do very much NOT want to pay for those 100. I see 'vibecoders' aka people who cannot code, burn through all Tokens for the month without having anything working in a single day.
by Archsha17 | 2025-06-05 08:50:38+00:00
I've been experimenting with how to interact with AI using emotional or symbolic input instead of natural language prompts.

This little project, Verbodream, is a "tone module shell" — you type in a sentence with feeling, and the interface matches it to internal “modules” which then reply with symbolic responses.

No AI backend, just handcrafted pattern logic. The goal is not utility, but resonance.

Demo: https://vymjvn.csb.app Source: https://codesandbox.io/p/sandbox/recursing-bush-vymjvn

Would love thoughts from people exploring: - Alternative prompt UX for AI - Emotional interfaces / ritual interfaces - Meaningful nonsense

Note: the demo is in Chinese, but the structure is simple: - You input an emotional sentence (any sentence) - The system matches it to 1–2 internal “tone modules” - They return symbolic, poetic replies You don’t need to understand the text — just feel the flow.

You can try with English too — it won’t match, but you’ll still get “too unique to interpret” feedback
by al_borland | 2025-06-05 08:51:11+00:00
Many modern editors, including VS Code, have a button which opens a preview pane to see rendered Markdown. It’s a single button click (the page with the magnifying glass on it in the upper right), no one is installing pandoc to read readme files.

The preview is really only needed if there is advanced formatting or HTML in there. A basic markdown doc should be easy to read in plain text.
by genewitch | 2025-06-05 08:52:49+00:00
If the copyrighted content is not in the training data, and I mean explicitly, and the AI produces a copyrighted output, I'd argue it's a clean room re-implementation, and also it ought devalue the original work, moreso if the work is more recent. Maybe.

I get that "first to publish" matters to a lot of people, but, say 5 unrelated people are writing unique screenplays about a series of events that seems important to them or culture or whatever; if they all come up with very similar plots and locations and scenes, it just means that the idea is more obvious than non-obvious.

Please, argue. I haven't fully reconciled a lot of this to myself, but off the cuff this'll do.

The logic being - if an AI without taint produces some other work, that work drew on the same information the model did, and came to the same "conclusion" - which means with a time machine, you could wipe the LLM, go back to the period of the original work, train the LLM, and produce the work contemporaneous to the original. Hope that made sense.
by bryanrasmussen | 2025-06-05 08:53:02+00:00
preventing fraud and info security are legitimate, direct marketing may be legitimate but probably is not.

direct marketing that I believe is legitimate - offers with rebate on heightened service level if you currently have lower service level.

direct marketing that is not legitimate, this guy has signed up for autistic service for our video service (silly example, don't know what this would be), therefore we will share his profile with various autistic service providers so they can market to him.
by yard2010 | 2025-06-05 08:53:06+00:00
He has a point, that's quite depressing that a work you had to think and act in order to solve hard problems now became almost the same as scanning barcodes in any supermarket, and it's outright sad that most people are happy about it and being snarky towards anyone that points the hardships that come with it.

Philosophically speaking (not practically) it's like living the industrial revolution again. It's lit! But it's also terrifying and saddening.

Personally it makes me want to savor each day as the world would never be the same again.
by Yizahi | 2025-06-05 08:53:25+00:00
The core of the issue is that a manager (President is just ultimate form of it) working in a peaceful and prosperous time period is not needed. He can be replaced with an automated set of scripts and mostly nothing would be affected by that replacement. In fact, we can't even correlate person's skills to a company/country performance if it was successful. Maybe that manager was incompetently hindering it, and it would have been even more successful without him.

Manager's skills are only shown during a conflict or a crisis. But no human has invented a way to test candidate on the crisis response. Partial solution is to hire/elect a person who manager crisis before, but because crises are always unique, their skills still don't translate to a new one.

So the answer is - it is impossible to do. Thus we shouldn't do that for the most critical positions.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-05 08:55:56+00:00
Are those bugs because of C++, or because of bad programing skills and practices? No programming language can save you from bugs if you hire people who don't know what they're doing. I used to work in automotive when a lot of the critical safety SW was only assembly and the end product didn't have any critical bugs.

Maybe Lockheed just has shitty programmers who don't know what they're doing because the US defense industry is incompetent and the US SW jobs market top heavy where talent who does know how to use C++ right goes to big-tech and not on-site at some defense contractor? To me that's not the fault of C++.
by kevhito | 2025-06-05 08:56:00+00:00
Ironic then that [0] (the first hit when I search "emacs org mode tutorial") says:

You can make words *bold*, /italic/, _underlined_, =code= and ~verbatim~, and, if you must, +strike-through+.

[0]: https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org4beginners.html
by al_borland | 2025-06-05 08:56:34+00:00
Those formatting codes are informative content. They tell the reader (even in plain text) that something is a section heading, bullet, code, etc.

This is information people often want in a plain text file, and having a common way to signal those things is beneficial when working on teams or sharing with others.

What’s the alternative? Everyone makes up their own bespoke way of formatting their text file that works for them, then has a key to explain it in their doc?
by Y_Y | 2025-06-05 08:56:35+00:00
As you astutely note, the company probably has it's "HQ" (for some legal definition of HQ) a mere 30 minutes across Dublin (Luas, walk in rain, bus, more rain) from the Data Protection Commission. It's very likely that whatever big tech data-hoarder you choose has a presence very close to their opposite number in both of these cases.

If it was easier or more cost-effective for these companies not to have a foot in the EU they wouldn't bother, but they do.
by yard2010 | 2025-06-05 09:00:18+00:00
That's a really smart observation.

It's hard to add sophisticated abstractions though, because they are all selling text by the pounds (kilos?). So it feels the same as vendor lock for a cucumber seller, doesn't it? The seller can sell you an experience that would lock you in, but aside from it there is no moat since anyone can sell cucumbers.
by lmm | 2025-06-05 09:01:21+00:00
> If the copyrighted content is not in the training data, and I mean explicitly, and the AI produces a copyrighted output, I'd argue it's a clean room re-implementation

You can't claim it's a clean room without actually doing the legwork of making a clean room. Not including the copyrighted work verbatim isn't enough, you would need to show that the AI hadn't seen anything derived from that copyrighted work, or that it had seen only non-copyrightable pieces.
by eurekin | 2025-06-05 09:02:06+00:00
I received the e-mail exactly 15 hours ago:

Hello, Your Pro plan just got way more powerful with three major upgrades previously available only to Max, Team, and Enterprise users. Claude Code is now included Claude Code is a command line tool that gives you direct access to Claude in your >terminal, letting you delegate complex coding tasks while maintaining full control. You can now use Claude Code at no extra cost with your Pro subscription.
by neom | 2025-06-05 09:02:07+00:00
Less fun for the players who lose because they don't like that way of playing? If you enjoy that way of play, winning would be a lot of fun I'd suspect? He created a new way of playing I read? His strengths (calculation?) matter most, his weakness (willingness to grind opening theory) is neutralized, nobody else can gain the preparation advantages that were starting to threaten his dominance? What is "pure chess"? The more I read about this guy the more I feel he's both... a bit lazy and a sore loser?
by randomtoast | 2025-06-05 09:03:23+00:00
And Great Britain just announced plans to deliver 100,000 of them to Ukraine. Ukraine lacks the manpower compared to Russia. It seems logical to strengthen their forces by deploying these flying mini terminators. I believe we are not far from large-scale drone warfare. In World War II, we had epic tank and aircraft battles; now, the time has come for autonomous drone battlefields.
by lynx97 | 2025-06-05 09:03:27+00:00
The goal of AI is to make money. All the moralisation is very human, but also extremely naive.

BTW, I don't really understand what "social pressure" and "shame" has to do with your story? In my book, the person with a good memory isn't to blame. They're just demonstrating a security issue, which is a good thing.
by badsectoracula | 2025-06-05 09:04:08+00:00
> any library can include a usage-rules.md file - essentially very terse documentation designed specifically for LLM context windows, explaining what to and what not to do when using the library.

This is useful for humans too, though personally i hope we go away with context window limitations in the future - perhaps context windows could be something like 'CPU registers' that the CPU likes to work with internally but there will also be an external "large" memory that LLMs can access and work with.
by al_borland | 2025-06-05 09:04:42+00:00
I’m a fan of year based versioning, but this change is likely a response to Samsung doing this, which makes their Galaxy S25 sound newer and more advanced than the iPhone 16.

It’s a silly game to play. Firefox did something similar. Their versioning moved famously slow, then all the sudden they started releasing major versions every other week until their version numbering was compatible to Chrome’s version.
by cornholio | 2025-06-05 09:06:11+00:00
This is an insane take. The plane was fitted with an undocumented automatic system that would erroneously change the pitch about ten times faster than what the pilot switches allowed, and that would automatically re-engage repeteadly as soon as the pilot released their switch, negating all progress made by the pilot. It would continue this adjustment blindly despite copious information available to the flight computers that a crash with terrain is imminent and that the pilot is having trouble leveling the plane.

So the electronic control route was fried, any normal person in that situation and physical and mental overload would conclude that trim controls are not functional.

The manual route, which they tried, involved at that speed an undocumented "roller coaster maneuver", pitching forward (!!) to release pressure on the trim mechanism and allow manual adjustment. It goes without question it's impossible the pilots could have come up with that solution in the mere seconds they had at their disposal, let alone the high risk it entailed.

Reducing the throttle early would have saved the plane, but it would have also resulted in immediate pitch down due to the torque the engines create against the body of the plane, as they are mounted off axis. The autothrottle was left to near 95% for the entire ~250s duration of the flight (the setting necessary for take off at the particular altitude of the airport) and once the cascading failures consumed all their situational awareness it stands to reason why they failed to adjust it and then hesitated to perform an action that would have (in the short run) worsened the problem in a near crash situation.

The MCAS as designed was a ticking timebomb that killed two plane loads of people in mere months, and Boeing accepted full responsibility for that, even if they are still denying criminal charges.
by anonzzzies | 2025-06-05 09:06:56+00:00
The US forces their laws everywhere and it needs to end. Everywhere we go, the fintech industry is really fed up with the US AML rules which are just blackmail: if your bank does not comply, America will mess you up financially. Maybe a lot more should just pull out and make people realise others can play this game. But that needs a USD collapse, otherwise it cannot work and I don't see that happening soon.
by matsemann | 2025-06-05 09:08:08+00:00
It's hard to gauge, because ratings between different years (pools) can't really be compared. But I'd say he has declined a bit, but no one else has really stepped up in the meantime. Gukesh and some are on their way, but for the last decade Magnus has been far above everyone else, and now that they're closer to him it's not really any new development from existing players.
by zombot | 2025-06-05 09:08:35+00:00
OpenAI keeping the logs is the "you have no privacy" part. Anyone who inspects those logs can see what the users were doing. But now everyone knows they're keeping logs and they can't lie their way out of it. So, for your own legal safety, put it in your TOS. Then every user should know they can't use your service if they want privacy.
by cmrx64 | 2025-06-05 09:08:47+00:00
for me, I’ll keep doing work on the codebase in a separate vscode while Cursor’s agent is wiling away at it, so as to not be distracted or interrupted by the agent activity in the corner of my screen. and then i’ll have a claude or aistudio tab open doing bigger analysis or planning tasks, reading papers together, etc.