MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by NortySpock | 2025-07-03 14:22:45+00:00
Found a wine fridge at the thrift store last month, pulled the model number, realized it was basically a Peltier cooler and a fan, and thus likely to be still operational. Powered up just fine, so...

$10 and an hour of deep cleaning later, and now we have a wine cooler in our basement. I don't recall the specs or power consumption offhand, but it does keep my beverage-of-choice a few degrees cooler than ambient. :)
by throwawaymaths | 2025-07-03 14:22:59+00:00
it's rigged against people that dont have that background. because plenty of people dont have that background (possibly even equally impressive, or more hard working, better leadership experience, better ideas) and without the pedigree get passed over by vcs, but this guy could fake everything, not get vetted, and get an inbound meeting on the right credentialism.

And the irony is, the vc couldnt see it either!!
by fnordpiglet | 2025-07-03 14:23:12+00:00
Homework before hand is an anti pattern IMO. It assumes people aren’t busy in the rest of their day and the meeting scheduler is inflating the toll of the meeting with a hidden prep tax. This is how people end up with 12 hour days.

Bezos forbade pre-meeting homework at Amazon for this reason. He was having a hard time keeping up with everything and the meetings were basically people recriminating each other for not being prepared then having to take up the first part of the meeting with catching everyone up anyways. So he structured meetings at Amazon as an introductory period of reading so everyone was always on the same page once discussion began. No slideshows, just reading a document of n pages where n is less than 6.

I personally find the high level IC pseudomanager role sad. I went back to IC to be closer to the metal. But the expectation is I’ll be a product manager, program manager, and people manager all in one while the focused roles work in a self limited silo.
by notatallshaw | 2025-07-03 14:23:41+00:00
What people like about this workflow is that you're not maintaining a separate venv or a separate requirement and it's declarative rather than imperative, this gives you two big advantages:

First, you can move that script to a different machine and do `uv run {script}`, no need to recreate a venv or provide install instructions (I believe uv will now even grab an appropriate version of Python if you don't have it?). This comes from PEP 723, and multiple tools support doing this, such as hatch.

Second, when you "add" a requirement instead of "install" a requirement it manages that with the knowledge of all requirements that were added before. For example, if I `pip install foo` and then `pip install bar` pip does not consider foo or it's dependencies as required when installing bar, so it's possible that you can break `foo` by installing completely incompatible dependencies. But when you "add foo" and then "add bar" from uv (and other tools that are declarative, like Poetry) your environment gets updated to take everything into account.

If managing Python dependencies is second nature to you then these might seem like extra concepts to keep in your head, but lots of people do find these useful because they find they can think less about Python dependencies.
by moritzwarhier | 2025-07-03 14:23:54+00:00
> Source? The popular narrative, at least a few months ago was that Chinese AI models like deepseek were not far behind models from OpenAI, hence the stock market crash

Like I said, I was talking from my personal experience.

I was comparing the on-prem models I know with the large, proprietary cloud models.

This includes variants of DeepSeek, but not the largest one that they host online.

> Is there any evidence this actually caused open weights models to be worse? As much as you hate this "rent seeking", it's mostly a sideshow. If open weights models are competitive, then the proof is in the pudding, no need to fret about the morality platforms "rent seeking" over UGC.

AI performance is famously hard to benchmark, so no, I don't have "evidence". But it is not unreasonable to assume some generality of my experiences with OpenAI's, Google's and other cloud models vs on-prem self-hosted coding agents models, that is, that the really large proprietary models perform best.

Also, I'm not "fretting about morality", I'm relating to the comment you replied to. The point was a monopolization of monetization for knowledge and skills by AI companies, when the data they build on was created for free by humans contributing to social media, or people paying to use cloud AI models.

It's possible for me to think about thinks beyond my control without claiming moral authority.

> This makes no sense. You can't take some copyrighted content you scraped (eg. some blog post), relicense it as "CC0", and then redistribute it.

You are distorting my point and building a strawman. Yes, people willingly give away their work for free, either

a) because they willingly accept CC0 or CC-SA (like with SO): https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing Most people who participated in these communities did it for fun, reputation, etc, not anticipating someone monetizing it by interpolating public content using AI

or

b) because they use Social Media like Reddit and simply don't know or don't care

> That's straightforwardly copyright infringement

What about a coding agent being able to do something "in its own words" because it sucked up lots of GitHub projects solving this problem, where people spent a lot of time on proper documentation etc

> There was a recent court ruling in the US that basically ruled it's fine to train on copyrighted books without permission, but you can't pirate books to obtain them. This hasn't reached the supreme court yet, so it's not final.

Wasn't this the same ruling that said it's enough to buy one copy of a book in order to basically sell paraphrased excerpts of said book?

Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I have not yet conceived any new information from your comment, and it seems that you distorted some of the previous discussion to make your point, which I'd paraphrase as "current copyright covers AI and there is no threat that AI companies would monetize public content that was put out under licenses meant to prohibit monetizing derivative work"
by falcor84 | 2025-07-03 14:24:03+00:00
Not if there's a ticket you're sort of but not quite stuck on, and feel uncomfortable updating the ticket status, as it could then prompt your lead to say "well, have you tried X already?" and feel clever about their contribution, while the reality is more complex and then you have to get into an awkward chat with them about why X is a poor idea in this case.
by bee_rider | 2025-07-03 14:24:05+00:00
Actually, I think it’s wrong to say that this paper proves Egyptians moved from somewhere else. As with any research paper, it is part of a conversation and moving consensus. It is a journey.

> Our knowledge of ancient Egyptians has increased through decades of bioarchaeological analyses including dental morphological studies on their relatedness to other populations in North Africa and West Asia

There are other footsteps. The DNA is just a notable rock they’ve clambered over.
by yial | 2025-07-03 14:24:05+00:00
Modafinil and armodafinil I find to be excellent at getting rid of tiredness. I find for me if I take too much, I’ll get nausea that’s only curable by a sleep cycle. Armodafinil tends to last much longer.

The downside I’ve noticed is that one side effect many people don’t realize is how it affects the body for some people. It can cause increased blood pressure among others - which can lead some people to feel anxious.

Body follows mind, mind follows body.

(As in my body feels anxious, so I must be anxious ).

I personally find the effects from Modafinil to be kind of like caffeine but with less side effects / longer lasting / more effective.
by taylodl | 2025-07-03 14:24:06+00:00
I care about capital because I care about humans - that's how capitalism works. I didn't create this system, but we both have to work within its confines. We can abandon it and change it, but that's going to require a revolution which will have a high cost in human lives. Let's not forget that. We may also end up with a system that's worse.

Also, as populations dwindle then the need for governance dwindles as well. So, our population is dwindling and we're shifting more of the people to government? That's not a viable strategy.
by el_pollo_diablo | 2025-07-03 14:24:19+00:00
Head and tail make sense for persistent lists in functional languages with value semantics, yes.

The intrusive, mutable, doubly-linked loops with reference semantics under discussion are quite different. Although all entries behave identically in the structure itself, one of them is _used_ differently, as a standalone anchor point, while the others are embedded in the list's "elements".
by rickydroll | 2025-07-03 14:25:03+00:00
Yes, in general, English is non-deterministic, e.g., reading a sentence with the absence or presence of an Oxford comma.

When I programmed for a living, I found coding quite tedious and preferred to start with a mix of English and mathematics, describing what I wanted to do, and then translate that text into code. When I discovered Literate Programming, it was significantly closer to my way of thinking. Literate programming was not without its shortcomings and lacked many aspects of programming languages we have come to rely on today.

Today, when I write small to medium-sized programs, it reads mostly like a specification, and it's not much bigger than the code itself. There are instances where I need to write a sentence or brief paragraph to prompt the LLM to generate correct code, but this doesn't significantly disrupt the flow of the document.

However, if this is going to be a practical approach, we will need a deterministic system that can use English and predicate calculus to generate reproducible software.
by lioeters | 2025-07-03 14:25:12+00:00
Even as an occasional casual Python user of several years, I noticed how much simpler it is to check out new projects using uv compared to other tools. It's such a relief because I used to encounter so many weird compatibility issues with Python, I guess mostly related to global installs of runtime versions and dependencies. In the past year or so, the situation seems to have dramatically improved thanks to uv.
Show HN: I made a tool to help turn Rails apps into Once-like apps and sell them
by roelbondoc | 2025-07-03 14:25:19+00:00
I’ve built a few small Rails apps over the years as hobby projects. I was interested in selling them as one-time-purchase, self-hosted products, similar Campfire and Writebook.

To make that easier, I built a tool called Discode. It handles packaging, licensing, and installation. I’m also using it to sell Discode itself.

If you’ve ever built a Rails app and wondered how to turn it into a downloadable/sellable product, this might be useful.

I recorded two short videos that show how it works:

Installing Discode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ZxADS3SpQ

Selling a Rails app with Discode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2D8ZmOMNEM

Would appreciate any feedback. Happy to answer questions!
by gyesxnuibh | 2025-07-03 14:25:22+00:00
My point in that second question was: Is the human challenge of getting a lot of inexperienced engineers to fully understand the LLM output actually worth the time, effort and money to solve vs sticking to solving the technical problems that you're trying to make the LLM solve?

Usually organizational changes are massive efforts. But I guess hype is a hell of an inertia buster.
by mlsu | 2025-07-03 14:25:45+00:00
Lots of talk here about writing being far superior to talking. This is entirely true. The thing you guys have to realize is that most people, like truly 80% of the population and probably some large subset of sw eng, hate reading and writing.

People see reading as a chore. The last full book they read was in an elective in college and even then they skimmed the spark notes. They see writing as a stupid thing they have to do, a word count they have to hit, not a communication mechanism at all. Seriously there are so many people out there like this. If you give them something to read and force them to read it, they won’t get half of it because they’re just waiting till the chore is over when they get to the end.

This is why chatGPT was trained to produce bullet points and why people do PowerPoints. A paragraph of the written word is scary to a percentage of the population, certainly most “normal people,” and definitely a large subset of engineers.

That’s just the way it is. But these are your colleagues you have to figure out how to communicate with them.
Show HN: I made a tool to block LinkedIn job spams
by ss-s | 2025-07-03 14:26:01+00:00
As a new grad who is on linkedin 24/7 trying to land a job, my jobs feed is 90% garbage from bots + spammy fake companies where many of them spam over 100 irrelevant roles every hour. It felt like my job feed was being hijacked and also was taking so much of my time.

So I built Blockedin, a simple Chrome extension that helps you take back control of your LinkedIn job feed. One click blocks the spammy company responsible, and their listings disappear from your jobs feed – permanently.

How it works: Whenever you come across a company you don’t want to see in your linkedin jobs feed - Click the “Block” button next to their name. The extension remembers and hides their future job posts automatically.

No signups, no emails. No data collected. Everything is local. Just install and use.

Currently 75 people use it daily and a few give me feedback every now & then.

Try it out here: Chrome Extension - https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/blockedin/akngiligi...

This is still an early version, and I’d love feedback. What would make this more useful for your job search? What’s missing? What’s broken?

Thanks for taking a look!
by toomuchtodo | 2025-07-03 14:26:12+00:00
Not everyone is going to work for the government. I expect a continuing increase in healthcare jobs and workers. Jobs for providing for the human, not jobs for capital aggregation.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-quarterly/us-labor...

https://altarum.org/news-and-insights/health-care-employment...

> In line with recent trends, the health care industry is expected to add more new jobs than any other industry over the next ten years. As shown in Figure 1, health care is projected to add 1.6 million jobs from 2023 to 2033, which is approximately 24% of all jobs expected to be added to the economy. The health care industry is also anticipated to be the third fastest-growing industry, with a growth rate of 9.0%.
by owenpalmer | 2025-07-03 14:26:25+00:00
While spatial intelligence is certainly a major limitation of current AI systems, I have been able to get LLMs to do quite impressive things.

Here's an on the fly video I made (no retakes) of Claude generating a Godot scene file.

https://youtu.be/2gARJpDG7Jo?si=W4rlISO-J4EPJYyG
by bearjaws | 2025-07-03 14:27:08+00:00
Apple needs to work on how they refresh AirPods. You have this product, now $20 short of the AirPods Pro 2, with the same chip and ANC... It seems there is almost no reason to upgrade.

With ANC is nearly the same price as the AirPods 2 Pro so it makes sense Apple is about to refresh the pros?
by housecarpenter | 2025-07-03 14:27:22+00:00
At least in my country (the UK), people generally do not learn abstract algebra in high school. That's a university-level topic.

I think there is a definite "step up" in complexity between the structures of abstract algebra such as monoids, rings, groups and vector spaces, and monads. All of those algebraic structures are basically just sets equipped with operations satisfying some equations. Monads are endofunctors equipped with natural transformations satisfying some equations. "Endofunctor" and "natural transformation" are considerably more advanced and abstract concepts than "set" and "operation", and they are concepts that belong to category theory (so I don't see how you can read and understand the definition of a monad without that basic level of category theory).

Your time estimates also seem wildly optimistic. A common rule of thumb is that reading a maths textbook at your level takes around an hour per page. I think the definition of a monad can be compared to one page of a textbook. So I'd say it'll take on the order of hours to read and understand the definition of a monad, and that's assuming you're already entirely comfortable with the pre-requisite concepts (natural transformations, etc.)
by falcor84 | 2025-07-03 14:27:27+00:00
But that's what a modern AI agent can do, which previous ones couldn't. If a company gives it full access to the project management system, your previous conversations with it, and its prior conversations with the other team members, I believe it can be quite good at follow up and recommendations. I do absolutely see managers giving it some limited decision making (e.g. "Yes, we should split this subtask off into next sprint") very soon.
by azath92 | 2025-07-03 14:28:11+00:00
this is an angle we honestly didn't think about (we are pretty much long time lurkers) but accessing existing HN content is a great idea! I didn't even know there was a page of upvoted submissions :) It doesn't look like thats available via the API, but a copy paste of some text should work just aswel, all we pass through is titles and urls to the LLM anyway to generate the profile so its much the same.

More generally a next feature we want for ourselves is a way to add just some generic text and "update" the profile with that, rather than generate it fresh exclusively off of the 30 examples. This circles back to us using this as a focus point to think about what data is enough to generate a good user profile, and what good is.
by intended | 2025-07-03 14:28:23+00:00
I predict that using LLMs is going to be a firing offense.

There will be a 100 justifications for and against it, but in the end you are going to need junior devs.

If said junior dev has not done the work, and an LLM has helped them, you are going to lose your hair walking through the code - every single time.

So you will choose between doing the work yourself, hiring new devs, or making the environment you do your work in become predictable.

We can argue that LLMs are massive piracy monstrosities, with huge amounts of public code in them, or that they are interfering with the ability of people to learn the culture of the company. The argument doesn't matter, because the reasoning being done here is motivated reasoning.

You will not care how LLMs are kept out of the playing pen, you just care that they are out.

So incentives will be structured to ensure that is the case.

What will really be game set and match, will be when some massive disaster strikes because of bad code, and it can either directly or tangentially be linked to LLMs.
by berdario | 2025-07-03 14:28:53+00:00
One big difference, is that the opposition to nazi Germany was relatively weak before the start of WW2:

After Reginald Drax's mission to Moscow failed, the Soviet Union ended up signing its famous non-aggression pact.

Italy was allied, Spain was neutral/aligned. Turkiye was neutral.

Poland could only count on UK and France[0].

Compare to now, where the NATO military bloc is massive. No one would dare risking a military confrontation in these circumstances.

If anything, when there are any tensions between two non-NATO countries, it makes it more urgent for one to oppose the other joining NATO (attacking before they'd join NATO would stave off them joining, attacking after they'd join NATO would lead to an unwinnable fight).

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance
by stephencanon | 2025-07-03 14:28:55+00:00
Right. Another way to see this is that for a general (possibly non-Abelian) group, the inverse of xy is y⁻¹x⁻¹ (because xyy⁻¹x⁻¹ = x1x⁻¹ = xx⁻¹ = 1 [using "1" for the identity here, as is typical for general groups], or more colloquially, "the inverse operation of putting on your socks and shoes is taking off your shoes and socks"). For an Abelian group, y⁻¹x⁻¹ = x⁻¹y⁻¹, and we're done.
by danaris | 2025-07-03 14:29:10+00:00
If that's what "you've seen", then you aren't looking in the right places.

Look at the graphs of real wages vs productivity that start pre-1970. Yes, it's true that real wages have gone up some since that time, but they remain completely divorced from productivity in a way that's totally different from the time before Reagan.

Meanwhile, the income/wealth of the highest earners has gone up astronomically during the same time.

They are staggeringly wealthy because they have redirected the flow of money from us to them. This is a very clearly visible and uncontroversial fact. The controversy is simply over whether it is a good thing.
by bitwize | 2025-07-03 14:29:10+00:00
One thing I've noticed about the internet is that it puts people in contact with little micro-communities of like-minded folks. This can be a good or bad thing, as people seek validation, and may find it in ready supply from the micro-communities of which they are a part, leading to the "echo chamber" phenomenon -- even when they least need validation. I have found myself prone to this dangerous phenomenon and tried to get out of it.

It seems as if ChatGPT can accelerate the downsides by providing as much validation as desired, which is toxic to your psyche like arbitrary sugar consumption is toxic to your body. Again I think of "Liar!" from I, Robot: the robot tells you what you want to hear because that is an essential part of its function.
by lubujackson | 2025-07-03 14:29:32+00:00
The original approach was to be a surgeon and minimally cut the code to save the patient (the PR). You need to change your thinkong to realize the architecture of the prompt was wrong. Talk in abstractions and let them fully revise the PR, like "this should be refactored to reraise errors to the calling function" instead of pinpointing single lines.

In other words, we need to code review the same way we interact with LLMs - point to the overarching flaw and request a reroll.
by genghisjahn | 2025-07-03 14:29:46+00:00
“LET’S SET THE EXISTENCE-OF-GOD ISSUE ASIDE FOR A later volume, and just stipulate that in some way, self-replicating organisms came into existence on this planet and immediately began trying to get rid of each other, either by spamming their environments with rough copies of themselves, or by more direct means which hardly need to be belabored.” Cryptonomicon. Page 24.
by rasengan | 2025-07-03 14:29:51+00:00
Makes sense.

I treat an LLM the same way I'd treat myself as it relates to context and goals when working with code.

"If I need to do __________ what do I need to know/see?"

I find that traditional tools, as per the OP, have become ever more powerful and useful in the age of LLMs (especially grep).

Furthermore, LLMs are quite good at working with shell tools and functionalities (heredoc, grep, sed, etc.).