MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by carlosjobim | 2025-07-07 18:53:23+00:00
It is the kind of thinking that almost all businesses have. You have to focus on the actual products and services which you provide and do a good job at it, not chase after any and every person with an opinion.

Down voters here on HN seem to live in a egocentric fantasy world, where every human being in the outside world live to serve them. But the reality is that business owners and leaders spend their whole day thinking about how to please their customers and their potential customers. Not other random people who might be misinformed.
by iamcalledrob | 2025-07-07 18:53:30+00:00
As someone who's worked in this field and seen it evolve for 20 years, this article really captures how I feel too about how tools shape your mindset and what you create.

The tool you have at hand has a huge impact on how you think. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" and all that.

Nothing shuts down a feeling of exploration and creativity more than loading up a Figma file made up of components assembled with auto-layout. Sometimes you just want to play, rules be damned. That's when the magic happens.

This is not a dig at Figma. It just happens to be that Figma has become huge, and so the opinion its UI has about what you should be designing has a huge impact on the industry.
by CaptainFever | 2025-07-07 18:53:57+00:00
> I don't know why people in HN are giving a pass to AI company for this kind of behavior.

As mentioned in The Fucking Article, there's a legal difference between training an AI which largely doesn't repeat things verbatim (ala Anthropic) and redistributing media as a whole (ala Spotify, Netflix, journal, ad agency).
by firesteelrain | 2025-07-07 18:54:10+00:00
You're right that any 3D point can be mapped to a spherical coordinate system like GPS. I don’t disagree.

GPS coordinates are geodetic, tied to the WGS-84 ellipsoid and Earth’s rotating reference frame. They were designed for terrestrial navigation and near-Earth orbit, not for interplanetary space. Once you're dealing with the Moon, the Sun, or Lagrange points, you're so far outside the system's intended domain that projecting lat/lon/alt onto those locations introduces more confusion than clarity.

You're also right to point out that it's not physically impossible to describe a faraway object in that coordinate system.

There is just no practicable utility.

NASA and others use inertial frames, barycentric coordinates, and RA/Dec for a reason.

Also, love the black hole tangent - that’s where coordinate systems get seriously weird :-)
by hbn | 2025-07-07 18:54:10+00:00
You can frequently do that in English too. Of course there are exceptions, but if anything it's typically because of words/names from other languages.

In my experience learning Spanish, their loan words are Spanish-ized, being made to be pronounced and spelled in a format that makes more sense in Spanish. Whereas in English, the pronunciation and spelling is usually taken more directly from the source, so you get a bunch of instances where a word's spelling doesn't really match its pronunciation.
by jama211 | 2025-07-07 18:55:13+00:00
It doesn’t refute anything, it complains bitterly and states things are problems that demonstrably aren’t. You’re figuratively pointing at the sky and stomping your foot and saying “it’s not blue it’s green”.

“I’m smarter than every designer” is such a common programmer trope at this point that it’s hilarious. Speaking as a developer myself.
by stevepotter | 2025-07-07 18:55:19+00:00
Agree, although this is often an undeveloped skill in newer folks. There are many other things I like to discuss in an interview: past mistakes, things they are especially proud of, times they trimmed scope to meet a deadline, working with difficult people, etc.

My goal for interviewing is to either hire the person, or not hire the person but have them walk away feeling like they got something out of our time together. Often I can quickly tell that the person isn't right for the role, in which case I will politely explain that to them and offer whatever advice I can.
by TheFastOne2 | 2025-07-07 18:55:22+00:00
> Suppose you'd done what they suggested, and formally closed your old account before the deadline, so that it was never in violation of Google's policy.

I don't really think so. My reason is that I've pointed this out in the conversation with Google as well, but they have never addressed this point. If this was the issue, I'd guess it would have been resolved.
by zamadatix | 2025-07-07 18:55:25+00:00
The recommended actions are built around the assumption optimal gaming performance is the only market segment to please. Of course, efficiency cores were never about pleasing that segment anyways - gamers want fewer huge cores, not lots of big cores or tons of efficient cores. That Windows gaming is slightly imperfect due to scheduling difficulties will not stop AMD, Intel, ARM, etc from continuing to use different sized cores on non-uniform interconnects if it means larger changes in perf/watt and perf/cost for that price.

In practice this is more of a problem for gaming news site headlines than users anyways. For all but the biggest enthusiast the uplift from going to a new system is usually so much they'd not notice it could be a couple percentage points better or that one game is still a bit hitchy. It's us ultra-nerds that care about the 1% lows between different top end CPUs, and we tend to be quickly convinced the problem is Microsoft's to solve for us when the scheduling problem hits ARM, AMD, and Intel based Windows devices equally.
by amlib | 2025-07-07 18:55:28+00:00
Aren't you comparing the wrong things? First example is about the output/outcome, what is the equivalent for LLMs? Also, not all "pirated" things are sold, most are in fact distributed for free.

"Pirates" also transform the works they distribute. They crack it, translate it, compress it to decrease download times, remove unnecessary things, make it easier to download by splitting it in chunks (essential with dial-up, less so nowadays), change distribution formats, offer it trough different channels, bundle extra software and media that they themselves might have coded like trainers, installers, sick chiptunes and so on. Why is the "transformation" done by a big corpo more legal in your views?
by quacked | 2025-07-07 18:55:28+00:00
Really? Every Figma mockup I've ever seen appears to be imitating that exact style. I don't think I've ever seen something different from any Figma product, even in their own advertisements. I thought it was a classic case of the tool/process constraining the design outputs, like those 5-over-1 designs that every new apartment building looks like.
by kraftman | 2025-07-07 18:55:40+00:00
...and my comment clearly isnt talking about that, but at the suggestion that its useless to write code with an LLM because you'll end up rewriting 50% of it.

If everyone has an opinion different to mine, I dont instantly change my opinion, but I do try and investigate the source of the difference, to find out what I'm missing or what they are missing.

The polarisation between people that find LLMs useful or not is very similar to the polarisation between people that find automated testing useful or not, and I have a suspicion they have the same underlying cause.
by kixiQu | 2025-07-07 18:55:58+00:00
I have a hypothes.is account where a decent amount of my annotations are little rage nits against the thing I'm reading. You'd be able to infer a ton of correct information from me if you pulled the annotations as well as the URLs, but the URLs alone could mislead.

I've had to remind myself of this pattern with some folks whose bookmarks I follow, because they'd saved some atrocious stuff – but knowing their social media, I know they don't actually believe the theses.
by xorcist | 2025-07-07 18:56:01+00:00
> the whole of paleo-anthropology "knew" that humans couldn't boil things until the invention of pottery

Is that really true? That sounds unlikely when there are so many contemporary counterexamples. If you have an interest in cooking, there are several traditional meals where cooking is done in other ways. Especially so for indigenous people who have little access to metals or clay. For example on Borneo the traditional way to cook rice over fire is inside bamboo stalks. As long as the water doesn't boil off, you can cook in almost any vessel.
by ryandrake | 2025-07-07 18:56:06+00:00
Also: The Future is not really looking very bright for anyone besides the already-wealthy. I don't know why you'd want to live in the future. If you're an average middle-class American, the peak best time to live ever (stretching out into the past and predicting into the future) is probably the 1990s or so. My standard of living is slightly worse than my (Boomer) parents', and my kid's standard of living is very likely going to be worse than my own, and I would bet that her future kid's standard of living will be further worse.
by marcosdumay | 2025-07-07 18:56:53+00:00
> User stories, when they’re actually a real problem a real user would need solved, are fine.

Some times. Other times they are detrimental, you need an algebra of composable operations up-front and any abstraction you put on the process of designing those will make people design a broken UX.

User stories are useful mostly for "flux-based" applications where the user has little freedom.
by rtkwe | 2025-07-07 18:57:03+00:00
Only pseudonymous so far as you never accidentally link yourself to a wallet then everyone can know your entire transfer/spending history. It gets people all the time just look at the investigations into various alt coin rug pulls or other fraud.

Irreversible is also not a good thing just ask anyone who had their NFTs stolen during that craze. If someone hacks my bank account or skims my card and transfers the money out the bank can reverse a lot of those transactions. Irreversibility wipes out decades of consumer protection advances.
by amdivia | 2025-07-07 18:57:13+00:00
I beg to differ.

Anthropomorphizing might blind us to solutions to existing problems. Perhaps instead of trying to come up with the correct prompt for a LLM, there exists a string of words (not necessary ones that make sense) that will get the LLM to a better position to answer given questions.

When we anthropomorphize we are inherently ignore certain parts of how LLMs work, and imagining parts that don't even exist
by dylan604 | 2025-07-07 18:57:52+00:00
It's interesting how pink tends to be the worst of the colors according to the charts. I wonder what it really looks like on paper. Does it disappear completely so it is very hard to see, or is it just invisible in the data as it rounds to 0 but leaves something visible on the paper? If you did an image in pink duotone with the worst offenders, would you have a blank sheet of paper after 26 weeks? Or does it look like something done in white duotone?
by trealira | 2025-07-07 18:58:31+00:00
> What the hell is the difference between "men" and "man"? What's the difference between "bitch" and "beach"?

Those words all have completely different vowels in English; they're not irregular spellings. If you can't tell the difference, you probably just haven't listened to enough English or have said them incorrectly too much to tell the difference.
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-07 18:59:02+00:00
You're projecting. You're the one conflating here, not me.

You've conflated "architectural feedback from running code" with "architectural feedback from typing syntax." I am explicitly saying implementation feedback comes from "running code and testing behavior, not from typing semicolons", yet you keep insisting that the mechanical act of typing syntax somehow provides architectural insights.

You've also conflated "intertwined" with "inseparable." Yes, architecture and implementation inform each other, but that feedback loop comes from executing code and observing system behavior, not from the physical act of typing curly braces. I get the exact same architectural insights from reviewing, testing, and iterating on generated code as I would from hand-typing it.

Most tellingly, you've conflated the process of writing code with the value of understanding code. I'm not eliminating understanding: I'm eliminating the mechanical overhead while maintaining all the strategic thinking. The cognitive load of understanding system design, debugging performance bottlenecks, and architectural trade-offs remains exactly the same whether I typed the implementation or reviewed a generated one.

Your entire argument rests on the false premise that wisdom somehow emerges from keystroke mechanics rather than from reasoning about system behavior. That's like arguing that handwriting essays makes you a better writer than typing them : confusing the delivery mechanism with the intellectual work.

So yes, I understand what conflating means. The question is: do you?
by kevindamm | 2025-07-07 18:59:24+00:00
Which languages do support TCO at this point? From my recollection we have

* Scheme

* Haskell

* Elixir

* Erlang

* OCaml

* F#

* Scala

* (not Clojure)

* the JVM could remove tail-recursive calls, but IIRC this still hasn't been added for security reasons

* Racket

* Zig

* Lua

* Common Lisp, under certain compilers/interpreters

* Rust? (depends)

* Swift? (sometimes)
by lesuorac | 2025-07-07 18:59:24+00:00
> For example: see 70-80 year old politicians ageist assault on future generations.

Sure but that's because the US voting demographic is old. It's the tyranny of the majority [1]; as the largest generation the baby boomers can vote and do vote for things that advance their interest. I'm not sure this phenomenon works if people live out to 150 years as the generational bubbles would be relatively smaller.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
by mrkeen | 2025-07-07 19:00:02+00:00
> Maybe I've just got unlucky in the past, but in most projects I worked on a lot of developer time was wasted on waiting for PRs to go green. Many runs end up bottlenecked on I/O or availability of workers

No, this is common. The devs just haven't grokked dependency inversion. And I think the rate of new devs entering the workforce will keep it that way forever.

Here's how to make it slow:

* Always refer to "the database". You're not just storing and retrieving objects from anywhere - you're always using the database.

* Work with statements, not expressions. Instead of "the balance is the sum of the transactions", execute several transaction writes (to the database) and read back the resulting balance. This will force you to sequentialise the tests (simultaneous tests would otherwise race and cause flakiness) plus you get to write a bunch of setup and teardown and wipe state between tests.

* If you've done the above, you'll probably need to wait for state changes before running an assertion. Use a thread sleep, and if the test is ever flaky, bump up the sleep time and commit it if the test goes green again.
by readthenotes1 | 2025-07-07 19:00:11+00:00
Earlier today there was an article about neanderthal's rendering fat.

The comments pointed out that anthropologist did not know that boiling was possible before the invention of pottery. Another comment pointed out that science teachers knew that it was possible because that was something they would do in class.

Final comment was about how people ReDiscover things in different fields - - like the trapezoidal rule for integration being discovered by someone studying glucose.

This is just yet another example of how bringing expertise from a different area can help.
by ianbicking | 2025-07-07 19:00:41+00:00
Some things you could do:

1. Look up compiler research in relevant areas

2. Investigate different parsing or compilation strategies

3. Describe enough of the language to produce or expand test cases

4. Use the AI to create tools to visualize or understand the domain or compiler output

5. Discuss architectural approaches with the AI (this might be like rubber duck architecting, but I find that helpful just like rubber duck debugging is helpful)

The more core or essential a piece of code is, the less likely I am to lean on AI to produce that piece of code. But that's just one use of AI.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-07-07 19:01:10+00:00
The argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.
by breckenedge | 2025-07-07 19:01:25+00:00
> As I have kept up conversation with my developer friends, it has become essentially the norm, and everyone is being pressed to find greater productivity using AI coding tools.

What a weird alternate universe it is that I live in. My managers are somewhat skeptical of AI workflows and keep throwing up roadblocks to deeper and more coordinated use among my colleagues. Probably because there is so much churn, and it’s difficult to replicate the practice from one engineer to another. Some of my colleagues are very resistant to using AI. I use it quite extensively, but rate limits mean that there are occasions when I must pick up where the machine leaves off.
by M4v3R | 2025-07-07 19:02:07+00:00
I am personally very excited for this development. Recently I AI-coded a simple game for a game jam and half the time was spent waiting for the AI agent to finish its work so I can test it. If instead of waiting 1-2 minutes for every prompt to be executed and implemented I could wait 10 seconds instead that would be literally game changing. I could test 5-10 different versions of the same idea in the time it took me to test one with the current tech.

Of course this model is not as advanced yet for this to be feasible, but so was Claude 3.0 just over a year ago. This will only get better over time I’m sure. Exciting times ahead of us.
by toasterlovin | 2025-07-07 19:02:29+00:00
> Yet the paucity of yhwh names.

Many of the biblical names ending in "ah" are YHWH names. This includes many of the prophets. So Elijah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Micaiah, Isaiah, for instance are all "ah" ending names that have a meaning related to YHWH in the same way that the "el" ending names are related to El. And then Joshua (and, hence, Jesus) is also a YHWH name.
by kragen | 2025-07-07 19:02:36+00:00
These are good points, but I think they represent a somewhat narrow view of the issue. What's happening here is that we're discussing among ourselves what kinds of actions would be good or bad with respect to AI, just as we would with any other social issue, such as urban development, immigration, or marital infidelity. You could certainly argue that saying "please don't replace wetlands with shopping malls" or "please don't immigrate to the United States" has "the underlying objective of inflicting some from of harm (here shame) as a means [of] compelling compliance through emotional leverage."

But it isn't a given that this will be successful; the outcome of the resulting conversation may well be that shopping malls are, or a particular shopping mall is, more desirable than wetlands, in which case the ostensible respondent will be less likely to comply than they would have been without the conversation. And, in this case, it seems that the conversation is strongly tending toward favoring the use of things like Grammarly rather than opposing it.

So I don't oppose starting such conversations. I think it's better to discuss ethical questions like this openly, even though sometimes people suffer shame as a result.
by tayo42 | 2025-07-07 19:03:31+00:00
Do other fields really have this figured out?

I guess bridges, buildings and houses generally don't fall.

Is that only due to hiring though? It seems more like physics doesn't change. And people who can do audits and inspections are probably pretty good.

I did an audit for my software at work. It's like talking to a child. Talking to a home inspector is way different experience.
by lesuorac | 2025-07-07 19:03:49+00:00
I wonder how much the prohibition of stem cell research set back anti-aging.

I just don't see how you can get humans to live super-long without replacement of parts. It's how every complex thing in the world lasts a long time. Stem cells are literally how we built the parts in the first place so it seems to me to be the first place to look on how to build them a second time.
by eesmith | 2025-07-07 19:03:54+00:00
As I understand it, æ was a letter in Old English while Þe same glyph in Modern English is a ligature, wið no linguistic connection between the two.

Last year at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40267080 I found that in the 1800s the ligatures æ, œ, ﬂ, ﬀ, ﬃ, ﬁ and ﬄ were pretty common in type collections.
by CaptainFever | 2025-07-07 19:04:53+00:00
> But this analogy seems wrong. First, LLM is not a human and cannot "learn" or "train" - only human can do it.

The analogy refers to humans using machines to do what would already be legally if they did it manually.

> And LLM developers are not aspiring to become writers and do not learn anything, they just want to profit by making software using copyrighted material.

[Citation needed], and not a legal argument.

> Also people do not read millions of books to become a writer.

But people do hear millions of words as children.
by cpeth | 2025-07-07 19:05:13+00:00
This sounds perfect for my use case. I'm a mountain biker who doesn't mind setting up hosting infra. It's fairly common when mountain biking to unintentionally get separated by line-of-sight or more than 75M even among very similarly skilled riders. Even on straight easy trails, just the dust cloud generated by the rider ahead can cause you to back off significant distance if it's dusty.

I've used these[0] in the past and they worked ok. I lost the pair I bought when traveling and thought using the plethora of radios I have with me anyway on my phone with an earbud headphone would be much better replacement. Would be great for group rides to just send an app link instead of suggesting they all buy $100 hardware.

Honestly I think a well marketed and polished commercial app would have both Sena and Cardo[1] both quite existentially scared.

[0]: https://www.sena.com/en-us/product/pi/ [1]: https://cardosystems.com/
by southernplaces7 | 2025-07-07 19:05:19+00:00
Aside from being an unpopular opinion, it's also a rather stupid one. I can think of no better way to say it. Virtually every technology currently used by the majority of human beings in the world to make their lives better in some way started as a privilege of the wealthy, but the tendency of a timespan between it going from that to something widely and affordably affordable has historically not only held ground but shortened.

To deny the possibility of breakthrough medical therapies that possibly save millions of families from the tragedy of prematurely losing loved ones just out of some half baked spite against the rich is grossly short-sighted at best. If anything is unethical, it's such a worldview itself.
by rkomorn | 2025-07-07 19:06:02+00:00
> Why do you describe it as dialect of French?

Did I? I mentioned dialects in France, not of French, IIRC.

I'm nitpicking because, TBH, I quite likely just read too much into your use of "astounded" in your original comment. It seemed to me that you were overestimating how prevalent or significant these languages were.

By the mid-20th century, they were already quite less popular and even less so by the time Malevil took place (1977, I take it, even though it was written a few years earlier), especially when it came to being taught before French.

At the same time, I guess I was maybe as surprised to learn that Louisiana French is still a thing as you were about these areas in France. :)