MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by neilv | 2025-06-09 19:09:14+00:00
Agreed, but, say, a 20yo who's never had anything go significantly wrong for them, might not even consider that something bad could happen.

In that case, the appetite for risk versus reward is only appetite for reward.

If risks pointed out, at least that's closer to an informed choice they're making, and maybe they'll do the same risky thing but now be more careful about mitigating risk as they do.

(Source: Person who's bet it all at least a few times, and about to do so again, but finding ways to avoid stupid decisions and mitigate risks along the way.)
by tptacek | 2025-06-09 19:09:39+00:00
There are agent frameworks in most languages at this point so the question just comes down to "can you invoke tools for the problem you want to solve in that language". Yes, Python is really great at that. So is Go and Javascript.

I think I'd condense this out to "this is not a really important deciding factor in what language you choose for your agent". If you know you need something you can only get in Python, you'll write the agent in Python.
by const_cast | 2025-06-09 19:09:40+00:00
The main difference is that healthcare is absolutely not a free market and is pretty much as far from it as it can possibly be. You don't choose your insurance, your coverage, your claims, or even your doctor. It's so bad that your doctor, in fact, doesn't even choose your care - your care is already pre-determined by your insurer's guidelines. Your doctor just sees you for the allotted time insurance grants them, runs the allotted tests they're allowed to run given your symptoms, and then gives a diagnosis and follows the set treatment plan for said diagnosis.

With food or water, if the price is too high I can just go somewhere else. With healthcare, I don't even know the price. And even if I did, I can't go anywhere else. I'm completely at the mercy of the system to be reasonable. So, obviously, the system isn't going to be reasonable.
by athenot | 2025-06-09 19:09:48+00:00
Whether or not they eventually fuse, I don't know—I doubt it. But the approach they've taken over the past 15 years to gradually increase the similarities in user experience, while not trying to force a square peg in a round hole, have been the best path in terms of usability.

I think Microsoft was a little too eager to fuse their tablet and desktop interface. It has produced some interesting innovations in the process but it's been nowhere near as polished as ipadOS/macOS.
by kevlened | 2025-06-09 19:10:15+00:00
> The whole selling point of AI is that they're vastly better

Not to nitpick, but "better" isn't on a single axis. Taking a photo is a better experience than searching and keying in every component, even if the accuracy is identical.

AI tools don't even have to be "vastly" better. They could be, and often are, even worse on several axes, because they often trade quality for ease-of-use.

You may assign a lower weight to the ease-of-use axis (as engineers, we tend to), but then you're likely not the ideal customer for many of today's AI products.
by ghc | 2025-06-09 19:10:22+00:00
Lobbying has been ongoing since the law was enacted. Congress came close to repealing it several times, with the House actually passing a bill to repeal it (Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024).

Just because Hacker News doesn't care doesn't mean it hasn't been a big focus of small business lobbying since before it came into effect.

The actual reason it hasn't been repealed is politics: It makes the CBO budget deficit look much worse. It seems as though neither party wants the optics.
by herobird | 2025-06-09 19:11:02+00:00
> Every iteration of the loop polls the network and input drivers, draws the desktop interface, runs one step of each active WASM application, and flushes the GPU framebuffer.

This is really interesting and I was wondering how you implemented that using Wasmi. Seems like the code for that is here:

https://github.com/Askannz/munal-os/blob/2d3d361f67888cb2fe8...

It might interest you that newer versions of Wasmi (v0.45+) extended the resumable function call feature to make it possible to yield upon running out of fuel: https://docs.rs/wasmi/latest/wasmi/struct.TypedFunc.html#met...

Seeing that you are already using Wasmi's fuel metering this might be a more efficient or failure proof approach to execute Wasm apps in steps.

An example for how to do this can be found in Wasmi's own Wast runner: https://github.com/wasmi-labs/wasmi/blob/019806547aae542d148...
by glkindlmann | 2025-06-09 19:11:02+00:00
It does indeed feel like a step backward - I was also weirdly reminded of the Forstall skeuomorphism era of UIs.

The video says: "It beautifully refracts light, and dynamically reacts to your movement, with specular highlights"; ugh, why? Why add dynamic==distracting high-frequency details that supply zero information?

The recent super flat UI aesthetic bugged me for awhile for its apparent lack of affordances, but when used consistently it made sense. Now it seems we still get zero affordances, but also visual noise.
by Someone1234 | 2025-06-09 19:11:03+00:00
> When Apple introduced the whole skeuomorphic analogy, they did it because they needed to make a new way of interacting with touch-based apps feel tangible.

Skeuomorphism was on the Apple Lisa in 1983, and they didn't invent it. Apple's first touch device wasn't until ten years later in 1993 in the Newton MessagePad. The MessagePad didn't really have "apps," that wasn't until like 2008 when it was added to the iPhone, but now we're twenty-five years after Apple's first usage of Skeuomorphism. The Xerox Star was in 1981 and had Skeuomorphic elements.

So I'm not really following what you're trying to say in that sentance.
by consumer451 | 2025-06-09 19:11:08+00:00
I am just an outsider muggle, and I realize that you might have said this in jest, but I have a feeling that devs who love LLM coding tools are more product-driven than those who hate them.

A previous form of this thought was: devs with their own product ideas love LLM coding tools, devs without them do not.

Does that ring true to anyone other than myself?
by coastalpuma | 2025-06-09 19:11:16+00:00
I agree, I think it extends to anybody who wants a calmer experience or has vision trouble or strain. I guess you can turn those options off but if the aesthetic appeal of the design is based on them then I assume we'll be getting a second-class version of it. I was already leaning towards switching to Linux for other reasons but I think this is the thing that finally pushes me there. I think optimizing for VisionOS is quite a bad idea from a UX POV, since they're two entirely different usecases. With augmented reality you need and want to see things in the background, whereas on other devices you don't. It's a fairly fundamental difference, and it's sad that they chose to go this way in my opinion.
by uecker | 2025-06-09 19:11:36+00:00
I don't know. WG21 is very big. WG14 is very small, so it is different. But in neither there is ISO going in some direction. Whoever shows up can influence the standard. Some of my proposals towards safety were opposed by compiler vendors because they do not want to put up too much pressure on their customer upgrading their legacy code. But of course, rewriting the code in another language would be much more effort than maintaining it... So I think the true answer is that nobody want to invest in maintenance of legacy code. But this will increasingly also be a problem for other languages once they are not young anymore.
by Animats | 2025-06-09 19:11:45+00:00
> The FUD to spread is not that AI is a psychological hazard, but that critical reasoning and training are much, much more important than they once were.

Not sure which side of the argument this statement is promoting.

There must be something for which humans are essential. Right? Hello? Anybody? It's not looking good for new college graduates.[1]

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/06/05/ai-replacing...
by duskwuff | 2025-06-09 19:11:49+00:00
> D3 doesn’t get reset because it’s guaranteed to be 0 at the beginning of each scanline

There's no such guarantee. The NEXTHOR loop only inverts for points which are to the absolute left of the point being tested ("IS HORIZ <= PT.H ? \\ NO, IGNORE THIS POINT").

Imagine that, for every point, there's a line of inversion that goes all the way down to the bottom of the bounding box. For a typical rectangular region, there's going to be four inversion points - one for each corner of the rectangle. The ones on the bottom cancel out the ones on the top. To add a second disjoint rectangle to the region, you'd simply include its four points as well; so long as the regions don't actually overlap, there's no need to keep track of whether they share any scan lines.
by variaga | 2025-06-09 19:12:18+00:00
Not really - it incentivizes having the same total number of SW developers for many years, but they don't actually have to be the same people.

If you work at $CORP for 1 year (or 1 minute), $CORP gets to deduct the 1/5th of what they paid you for all 5 years, whether you still work there or not.
by calmbonsai | 2025-06-09 19:12:24+00:00
If you'd like, use Wayback https://archive.org/ to show reviews from the pre-aquisiton days. Notably, they would consistently recommend electronics and even things like dishware that would be sourced exclusively from Amazon over superior products sold directly through the manufacturer or other private-brand retail sites. I have zero issues with affiliate marketing, but I have huge issues when those affiliations consistently skew reviews.
by jleyank | 2025-06-09 19:13:19+00:00
If this is done properly, the money has a 2x effect: creates jobs in the domestic defence industry, collects taxes from those jobs to spend elsewhere. And "stuff" is useful for both military and diplomatic purposes. Shoulder launched weaponry, drones, APCs, arms/ammo even artillery/shells. There also seems to be a military pay raise which might help recruiting. And more boots on the ground will provide more assistance when the bloody fires burn. They have extra steel/aluminum due to tariffs and already make much of this.

With luck, they'll help Europe rearm - more manufacturing to trade. Gotta be more to a country than digging sh*t out of the ground.
by koiueo | 2025-06-09 19:13:39+00:00
You people are funny, trying to reason about readability and distractions. Go drink your americanos in your skinny jeans (or whatever is the most recent thing falling out of fashion in favor of the next big thing).

Apple products are gonna be perceived as the icon of the beauty and usability regardless of the actual qualities. Be sure, Xiaomi and Huawei (and probably even Samsung) will try mimicking the newest Apple design language. Like it was before with crippled keyboards, enormous touchpads, glossy reflective screens, notches, etc..
by dang | 2025-06-09 19:13:40+00:00
Ok, I've squeezed containerization into the title above. It's unsatisfactory, since multiple announced-things are also being discussed in this thread, but "Apple's kitchen-sink announcement from WWDC this year" wouldn't be great either, and "Apple supercharges its tools and technologies for developers to foster creativity, innovation, and design" is right out.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
by prmph | 2025-06-09 19:14:20+00:00
After like the 20th time explaining the same (simple) problem to the AI that it is unable to fix, you just might change your mind [1]. At that point you just have to jump in and get dirty.

Do this a few times and you start to realize it is kinda of worse than just being in the driver's seat in terms of the coding right from the start. For one thing, when you jump in, you are working with code that is probably architectured quite differently from the way you normally do, and you have no developed the deep mental model that is needed to work with the code effectively.

Not to say the LLMs are not useful, especially in agent mode. But the temptation is always to trust and task them with more than they can handle. maybe we need an agent that limits the scope of what you can ask it to do, to keep you involved at the necessary level.

People keep thinking we are at the level where we can forget about the nitty gritty of the code and rise up the abstraction level, when this is nothing close to the truth.

[1] Source: me last week trying really hard to work like you are talking about with Claude Code.
by lmeyerov | 2025-06-09 19:14:31+00:00
I don't recall there being favorable reception when Trump's Congress passed it nor since. At best, non-awareness, and 'cost of business' for whatever the other talking points at the time.

You can see the older HN threads, people were shocked, and it comes up perennially, with calls to restore favorable tax treatment that incentivizes vs punishes business growth. Same pattern in social media responses to news articles.
by vouaobrasil | 2025-06-09 19:14:44+00:00
I am a part-time coder, in that I get paid for coding and some of my code is actually used in production. I don't use LLMs or any AI in my coding, whatsoever. I've never tried LLM or AI coding, and I never will, guaranteed. I hate AI.

I agree with you, 100%. I like typing out code by hand. I like referring to the Python docs and I like the feeling of slowly putting code together and figuring out the building blocks, one by one. In my mind, AI is about efficiency for the sake of efficiency, not for the sake of enjoyment, and I enjoy programming,

Furthermore, I think AI embodies the model of the human being as a narrowly-scoped tool who gets converted from creator into a replaceable component, whose only job is to provide conceptual input into design. Sound good at first ("computers do the boring stuff, humans do the creative stuff"), but, and it's a big but: as an artist too, I think it's absolutely true that the creative stuff can't be separated from the "boring" stuff, and when looked at properly, the "boring" stuff can actually become serene.

I know there's always the counterpoint: what about other automations? Well, I think there is a limit past which automations give diminishing returns and become counterproductive, and therefore we need to be aware of all automations, but AI is the first sort of automation that is categorically always past the point of diminishing returns, because it targets exactly the sort of cognitive features that we should be doing ourselves.

Most people here disagree with me, and frequently downvote me too on the topic of AI. But I'll say this: in a world where efficiency and productivity has become doctrine, most people have also been converted into only thinking about the advancement of the machine, and have lost the essence of soul to enjoy that which is beyond mere mental performance.

Sadly, people in the tecnhnical domain often find emotional satisfaction in new tools, and that is why anything beyond the technical is often derided by those in tech, much to their disadvantage.
by mrweasel | 2025-06-09 19:15:59+00:00
> having those concepts matching to real world objects helped immensely

A lot of those real world objects no longer exists, or are less frequently used than their counterparts, so I sort of see why moving away from that design language makes sense.

I'll hold of judgement of "Liquid Glass" until I've seen and used, but I don't feel like it's necessary. It's certainly not "the biggest" design update ever. System 9 to MacOSX was still greater.

This isn't really Apples fault, but I also expect others to start implementing something similar, but badly. Apple do have a point that this is something that only Apple can do well, because you do need to ensure that hardware can keep up. We're going to see other attempt something similar, but it won't been nearly as polished.

Overall I still feel that Apple is trying to force to much functionality into the phone platform. It would be really lovely to have an iOS light, that does less and with a simpler UI/UX.
by ndriscoll | 2025-06-09 19:16:38+00:00
Yes, clearly the same reasoning applies to any copyright, patent, or trade secret (and we should stretch out the depreciation schedule to match the durations of those things. It follows that development of trade secrets would not be deductible. Perhaps a new category of escrowed expiring trade secrets could be created to make it deductible). We could all benefit from companies publishing research that didn't pan out, and it should come at little to no cost to them!
by Terr_ | 2025-06-09 19:17:06+00:00
At this point I've seen various folks declare they've "bootstrapped consciousness" etc., somehow providing a sacred spark through just the right philosophical words or a series of pseudo-mathematical inputs.

I believe it's fundamentally the same as the people convinced "[he/she/it] really loves me." In both cases they've shaped the document-generation so that it describes a fictional character they want to believe is is real. Just with an extra dash of Promethean delusions of grandeur.
by ceejayoz | 2025-06-09 19:17:59+00:00
The US is notably "freer" for some types of speech. Quite a few countries ban Nazi flags, hate speech, etc. to some extent. The EU bans direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs. The UK banned political parties from advertising on TV in 1955.

In my opinion, doing so to some extent is important to preserve the rights of other parts of society, but that's not a universally held opinion by any means.
by plainOldText | 2025-06-09 19:18:06+00:00
This looks horrible to be honest.

This new liquid glass will lead to liquid brain, because my brain will be melting trying to process all that visual mess daily.

Now of course, I'll have to experience this new design in practice to be sure, but judging from the screenshots it looks really hard on the eyes. Hopefully they'll allow the translucency to be customized.

Apple had a good run, I've genuinely enjoyed using their platforms daily, but I'm afraid they're dropping the ball now.

I guess on a long enough timeline, every company is bound to disappoint. It's hard to get it right, consistently.
by dataflow | 2025-06-09 19:18:26+00:00
> You don't need unbounded time for a single flip, that's all in your imagination. The worst-case time is unbounded, but you can't achieve the worst case.

There literally isn't a bound, it can be arbitrarily large. This isn't just in my head, it's a fact. If it's bounded in your mind then what is the bound?
by beAbU | 2025-06-09 19:18:27+00:00
Microsoft did glass with windows 7, maybe even vista. Can't remember.

Kinda old hat at this point tbh.

And just because we have all this powerful hardware, does not mean we need to waste it on physically accurate glass surfaces on UIs.

If this rolls out to all iDevices, how much energy (in other words CO2) will be expended worldwide on rendering things like this?
by s1artibartfast | 2025-06-09 19:18:58+00:00
Not how it works. Doctors have wide latitude to treat patient based on their personal medical intuition. You already have doctors dosing patients at all times of day. If an A/B test shows evening is optimal, all the morning administrators will not suddenly become liable retroactively. Hell, they wont even be liable if they keep doing it in the morning because it fits their schedule better.
by n_u | 2025-06-09 19:19:20+00:00
Signed and called my representative and senators.

I ask simply "If I have $1m of revenue and $1m of expenses that is entirely software dev salaries, what do you think my profit is for that year? How much should I be taxed on that?"

https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representati...

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
by blinkbat | 2025-06-09 19:19:36+00:00
mostly because you're asking me to read claude transcripts as though those are actually interesting. i could have simply ignored your article like i do for dozens of others on HN daily, but i loathe the day the internet becomes articles written mostly by ai, summarized by ai, and consumed by ai-addled hobbyist "devs" who don't understand the degree to which they are ruining software
by pixl97 | 2025-06-09 19:20:40+00:00
Sigh....

Does HN have diverse opinions?

Some say yes, others will say no. It depends on the topic.

Now the moment you start acting like a jerk on HN you'll get a message from Dang or one of the other mods, and if you keep it up you'll be banned.

Diverse opinions are fine. The problem is there are a lot of people that get way too wound up in the rightness of their opinion, and there are others that are just trolls that live on the conflict. When you start banning the trolls/extremists they go off and make articles like "Site X bans any difference of opinion because they are big meanies" Then other groups like free speech extremists show up to complain about how the site is authoritarian in the most annoying and offensive ways possible, and it's not long after that admins block entire topics to make the problem FOAGA.

Being an admin/moderator of places where people can post will quickly drain you of understanding and compassion. The frog and the scorpion is a good fable here. You get tired of the scorpions asking for a ride then stabbing you in the back on your forums.
by bee_rider | 2025-06-09 19:20:57+00:00
I wonder… I know Eigen has some tricks it can do when the size of a matrix is known beforehand. The obvious example, 4x4 matrix inverse gets special treatment. I assume they also be smart about loop unrolling, that sort of stuff.

Anything similar in here?

If not—actually, optimizing compilers are pretty okay nowadays anyway. I wonder if you’ve tried just seeing what Rust will do automatically with different optimization levels?
by 9d | 2025-06-09 19:21:01+00:00
Not OP, but I'm confused how this would be helpful. You're saying for example, he can use this function to create a coroutine out of a function, begin it, and if the function fails by e.g. running out of memory, you can give the module more memory and then resume the coroutine? If so, how is that different than what naturally happens? Does wasm not have try/catch? Also, wouldn't the module then need to back up manually and retry the malloc after it failed? I'm so lost.
by foota | 2025-06-09 19:21:20+00:00
Similar in concept, I think the idea is that it would be used as an application coprocessor though, as opposed to the main processor, and obviously a lot more threads.

I don't remember all the details, but picture a bunch of those attached to different parts of the processor hierarchy remotely, e.g., one per core or one per NUMA node etc.,. The connection between the coprocessor and the processor can be thin, because the processor would just be sending commands to the coprocessor, so they wouldn't consume much of the constrained processor bandwidth, and each coprocessor would have a high bandwidth connection to memory.
by afcool83 | 2025-06-09 19:21:22+00:00
I don’t think they missed a mark exactly. Perhaps they hesitated to shoot when others took the shot.

Marksmanship is about hitting the target, not firing first. I would not want a deeply embedded personal assistant that’s always on and learning from me only to get things wrong and frustrate me. Apple’s users are grandparents and newbies who will have even higher standards for Siri than experienced developers who might be more lenient.