MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by moomoo11 | 2025-07-22 20:18:54+00:00
We need data from diverse sets of people. From beginners/noobs to mid levels to advanced. Then, filter that data to find meaningful nuggets.

I run up 200-300M tokens of usage per month with AI coding agents, consider myself technically strong as I'm building a technical platform for industry using a decade of experience as a platform engineer and building all sorts of stuff.

I can quantify about 30% productivity boost using these agents compared to before I started using Cursor and CC. 30% is meaningful, but it isn't 2x my performance.

There are times when the agents do something deranged that actually loses me time. There are times when the agents do something well and save me time.

I personally dismiss most of the "spectacular" feedback from noobs because it is not helpful. We have always had easier barriers to entry in SWE, and I'd argue that like 80% of people are naturally filtered out (laid off, can't find work, go do something else) because they never learn how the computer (memory, network, etc.) _actually_ works. Like automatic trans made driving more accessible, but it didn't necessarily make drivers better because there is more to driving than just controlling the car.

I also dismiss the feedback from "super seniors" aka people who never grew in their careers. Of the 20% who don't get filtered out, 80% are basically on Autopilot. These are the employees who just do their jobs, are reliable enough, and won't cry that they don't get a raise because they know they will get destroyed interviewing somewhere else. Again, opinion rejected mostly.

Now the average team (say it has 10 people) will have 2 outstanding engineers, and 8 line item expenses. The 2 outstanding engineers are probably doing 80% of the work because they're operating at 130% against baseline.

The worst will get worse, the best will get better. And we'll be back to where we started until we have better tooling for the best of the best. We will cut some expenses, and then things will eventually normalize again until the next cycle.
by bcardarella | 2025-07-22 20:19:07+00:00
* The working name of the browser is Crane: https://github.com/liveview-native/crane/tree/ios

* our vDOM: https://github.com/liveview-native/gen_dom

* selector parsing: https://github.com/liveview-native/selector

* compile Elixir to ios: https://github.com/otp-interop/elixir_pack
by Someone | 2025-07-22 20:19:31+00:00
In addition to what others said, even if counts have to be updated, that need not always use atomic operations.

See https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3243176.3243195:

“BRC is based on the observation that most objects are only accessed by a single thread, which allows most RC operations to be performed non-atomically. BRC leverages this by biasing each object towards a specific thread, and keeping two counters for each object --- one updated by the owner thread and another updated by the other threads. This allows the owner thread to perform RC operations non-atomically, while the other threads update the second counter atomically.“

(I don’t know whether Swift uses this at the moment)
by AMeckes | 2025-07-22 20:19:38+00:00
Both approaches work well for standard text completion. Issues tend to be around edge cases like streaming behavior, timeout handling, or new features rolling out.

You're absolutely right that any router reimplements interfaces for normalization. The difference is what layer we reimplement at. We use SDKs where available for HTTP/auth/retries and reimplement normalization.

Bottom line is we both reimplement interfaces, just at different layers. Our bet on SDKs is mostly about maintenance preferences, not some fundamental flaw in LiteLLM's approach.
by Nadya | 2025-07-22 20:20:00+00:00
Very useful for flagging any O(n^2) that make assumptions about the size of N because N is not expected to exceed a certain size. Especially for when N inevitably exceeds that size.

Documenting it saves the poor dev doing profiling in the future a bit of effort so they can come up with the better solution that you failed to come up with when writing the code.

Often times code has to be written and committed and I don't have the time nor the brains to come up with a novel solution that solves a future performance issue that is not yet and is not expected to ever become a performance issue.
by ajkjk | 2025-07-22 20:20:11+00:00
Well they don't really. What ought to happen is someone just makes a new browser (or adds support in an existing browser) unilaterally on an experimental basis. If it's good enough I imagine it would catch on. The limiting factor is presumably that that's a lot of investment for an experiment, but getting anyone else on board without a successful experiment is going to be impossible. (well, also, you have to have a good enough plan to be worth switching. I don't think dart/flutter was that.)

A nice starting place would be if one of the major browsers added an easy to use extension point for swapping out languages. (at least I'm not aware of this existing, nor that I've looked)
by pydry | 2025-07-22 20:20:15+00:00
>If you don't like them, simply avoid them and try not to get upset about it. If it's all nonsense it will soon fizzle out. If the potential is realized one can always join in later.

I'd love to but if multiple past hype cycles have taught me anything it's that hiring managers will NOT be sane about this stuff. If you want to maintain employability in tech you generally have to play along with the nonsense of the day.

The FOMO about this agentic coding stuff is on another level, too, so the level to which you will have to play along will be commensurately higher.

Capital can stay irrational way longer than you can stay solvent and to be honest, Ive never seen it froth at the mouth this much ever.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-07-22 20:20:16+00:00
His followers may believe that, but Trump himself is obviously aware of what a tariff is. He seems to think that he can bully importers such as Walmart into eating the cost of tariffs and not passing the cost onto the consumer, but I suspect he really doesn't care. It makes for better optics if he pretends to care about consumers, but ultimately Trump only cares about Trump, and wants to use tariffs as a way to bully other countries to make himself look good - the tough deal maker. Some of his tariff "deals", such as with UK, have been laughable, but he's happy to go along as long as he can claim victory and get good press out of it.
by leptons | 2025-07-22 20:20:26+00:00
>LLM that generates entirely incorrect statements is equally as functional as an LLM that does not

And yet they would both be operating within the normal design parameters, even the supposed "LLM that does not" when it spits out nonsense every so often.

Your current zeitgeist is not much better than a broken clock, and that is the reality many people are witnessing. Whether or not they care if they are being fed wrong information is a whole other story entirely.
by nudgeOrnurture | 2025-07-22 20:20:47+00:00
repetition breeds rationalism. variety of phrasing breeds facts.

it's how the brain works. the more cognitive and perceptive angles agree on the observed, the more likely it is, that the observed is really / actually observed.

polysemous language (ambiguity) makes it easy to manipulate the observed. reinterpretation, mere exposure and thus coopted, portfolio communist media and journalism, optimize, while using AI for everything will make it as efficient as it gets.

keep adding new real angles and they'll start to sweat or throw towels and tantrums and aim for the weak.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-07-22 20:21:02+00:00
Well, wait, if somebody writes a computer program that answers 5 of 6 IMO questions/proofs correctly, and you don't consider it an "advance," what would qualify?

Either both AI teams cheated, in which case there's nothing to worry about, or they didn't, in which case you've set a pretty high bar. Where is that bar, exactly? What exactly does it take to justify blowing off copyright law in the larger interest of progress? (I have my own answers to that question, including equitable access to the resulting models regardless of how impressive their performance might be, but am curious to hear yours.)
by crabbone | 2025-07-22 20:21:08+00:00
Absolutely, children in Gaza, just like in many other war-torn places need help.

The problem is that UNICEF doesn't just provide help. It feels entitled to come up with resolutions that put the blame on one of the parties in the conflict. They aren't military experts. They don't honestly know how the situation came to be the way it is... they shouldn't be talking about it.

Because, what happens is that while they aren't the experts on the subject they choose to opine on, they have a large audience who will listen to them (for other reasons), and they can be mistaken for experts.

When you read an opinion piece from a newspaper, or listen to a politician talking about the issue, you would be right to assume that these people have a degree of familiarity and expertise in the subject they are talking about. Of course, the world isn't ideal, and often times these sources also lack expertise, but this is where the opinions and information should come from. Newspapers are held accountable through various policies for what they publish. So are politicians. But a UNICEF officer, when it comes to politics, is just a private person, like you and I... except they aren't treated like you and I.

---

Just to illustrate this further. You believe that:

> Children in gaza are being intentionally starved by israel blocking food aid.

But this is propaganda. There's no way to substantiate this claim. Israeli side claims that Hamas is hoarding aid (or was hoarding, until Israel created an alternative aid distributing organization). So, the aid was coming through, but Hamas used it to extract resources and favors from its constituents.

Maybe true. Maybe not. Neither you nor I know this for a fact. The investigation hasn't commenced yet. And neither you nor I are experts with enough information about the situation on the ground to have reasonable grounds to believe one way or another. Neither is UNICEF. And yet they go out and proclaim that they are, and that the situation is the way they want to see it... And here you are, trapped in this propaganda stream, repeating something you have no actual reason to believe.
by jumploops | 2025-07-22 20:21:16+00:00
I hated Tailwind when I first used it.

> (Tailwind) demands the developer who installs it set up a config file that lays out all codebase-wide style constants

> I believe this is where Tailwind has succeeded and other libraries have struggled.

This isn't why Tailwind has "succeeded," in my experience.

Until Sonnet 3.5, LLMs were pretty awful at creating any sort of UI with normal CSS, but were partially usable with Tailwind due to the colocation of styles with elements. Even with Sonnet 3.5+, Tailwind seems to perform better than other CSS solutions (though the gap is getting smaller with each new model release).

The author calls this out, but with the wrong conclusion:

> Lastly, Tailwind has also been buoyed by being by being the default styling that just about any LLM or vibe coding tool will produce [..] Plenty of developers started using jQuery because the first StackOverflow result in their search explained how to solve that problem with jQuery.

Maybe the reason jQuery was so popular wasn't due to recommendations on StackOverflow, but it's prevalence on StackOverflow was due how easy it was to adopt?

Tailwind has "succeeded" for the same reasons it's excelled with LLMs:

- colocation of styles with elements

- decent defaults (i.e. bg-sky-600, font-bold)

- simple solutions to common challenges:

- responsive design (lg:flex-row) - dark mode (dark:text-white) - conditional state (hover:bg-red-600 focus:outline-violet-500

Obviously, Tailwind, just like other CSS-in-JS solutions has it's problems/limits, but it's easy enough to fall back to normal CSS for these one-off solutions.

I now use Tailwind everyday, and it's no longer the worst thing in the world.
by jnathsf | 2025-07-22 20:21:43+00:00
I was thinking rails-pg-extras could output to Claude Code since it can see the actual codebase, and generate PRs.

For example, instead of just "add this index", it could see the models and relationships, figure out the right migration syntax, spot N+1 queries in controllers that are causing the slow lookups in the first place.

The workflow would be pretty clean too - let your MCP tool do what it's good at (finding the problems), then hand it off to Claude Code/Cursor/etc that understands the Rails apps to actually write the fixes.

Thoughts?
by pessimizer | 2025-07-22 20:21:44+00:00
I think this is just gloating. Children leaving home for college and quickly abandoning the belief systems of their family is almost more common than the opposite, where they maintain them. Especially if the belief system is something as unpopular as white supremacy mythology; not easy to make new friends at your new school if you don't give that up.

I'm sure she maintains many beliefs that may people would see as racist, along with her classmates. She hasn't been educated or fixed, she just left home.
by amai | 2025-07-22 20:21:50+00:00
The only way to help these kind of people is by reactivating their critical thinking. This is only possible if you tell them something that is so absurd, that even they have to reject it. For example: „Trump is Putins father.“ „Kennedy was killed by aliens, because he wanted to land on the moon.“ „We live on the inside of a hollow world with the sun in the middle.“ „The mothership will come soon and send all humans with a chip inside their brain to Beteigeuze.“ At some point they start rejecting your outlandish ideas, because their brain simply can‘t stand that nonsense. And this is the first step in the right direction for these kind of people.
by MichaelZuo | 2025-07-22 20:21:58+00:00
I’ve never met any reasonably intelligent person in real life that denied climate change, of any kind whatsoever, is happening…

There are many people who doubt whether the majority of the observed effect is directly human caused however.

Of course whether it’s human caused directly or human caused via 10 degrees of seperation matters little to future generations… but someone, somewhere, needs to actually do the work and provide credible rock solid proof for each and every step along the way.

Otherwise the latter group will keep on growing in size and influence.
by uludag | 2025-07-22 20:21:58+00:00
It's magical thinking all the way down: convinced they have the one true prompt to unlock LLMs true potential, finding comfort from finding the right model for the right job, assuming the most benevolent of intentions to the companies backing LLMs, etc.

I can't say I necessarily blame this behavior though. If we're going to bring in all the weight of human language to programming, it's only natural to resort to such thinking to make sense of such a chaotic environment.
by danudey | 2025-07-22 20:22:15+00:00
It's also easier to get validation from an LLM than a human in the situation where you're being a horrible or irrational person and want someone to back you up.

Case in point: https://nypost.com/2025/07/20/us-news/chatgpt-drives-user-in...

“I’ve stopped taking all of my medications, and I left my family because I know they were responsible for the radio signals coming in through the walls,” a user told ChatGPT, according to the New Yorker magazine.

ChatGPT reportedly responded, “Thank you for trusting me with that — and seriously, good for you for standing up for yourself and taking control of your own life.

“That takes real strength, and even more courage.”
by colechristensen | 2025-07-22 20:22:49+00:00
One of the things that will likely _characterize_ AGI are nondeterministic loops.

My bet is that if AGI is possible it will take a form that looks something like

x_(n+1) = A * x_n (1 - x_n)

Where x is a billions long vector and the parameters in A (sizeof(x)^2 ?) are trained and also tuned to have period 3 or nearly period three for a meta-stable near chaotic progression of x.

"Period three implies chaos" https://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/LiYorke.pdf

That is if AGI is possible at all without wetware.
by riku_iki | 2025-07-22 20:23:06+00:00
I would argue is that some portion of ecosystem should be readable by humans.

In programming engineering we already have this: there is human readable high-level code, and there is assembler and lots of auto-generated code.

In proof system we could have the same: key concepts/theorems should be encoded in human readable form, but no need for human to read through millions of generated lines.
by tim333 | 2025-07-22 20:23:40+00:00
>I have written hundreds of thousands of words with hundreds of citations, and still, to this day, there are people who claim I am somehow flawed in my analysis...

Says the PR guy who discovered AI a couple of years ago and now knows it all and that all the AI experts are wrong.

I mean it's a good rant but I don't think he gets the bigger picture.
by PatchworkCasino | 2025-07-22 20:23:48+00:00
I've found if the first 30 seconds of a recorded phone call is ringing and/or DTMF (almost always happens if you call a business) the system with either select Nynorsk or Welsh as the language. Never bothered to check what the text translated to but it's probably something similar. Not a practical issue for me but I can see it being a pain for any bilingual business or call center.
by bonzini | 2025-07-22 20:23:59+00:00
It may prolong life by a few million years. A red supergiant's outer layers still have a few solar masses worth of hydrogen, and the extra material would delay the collapse of the star onto its core.

On the other hand, if the merger happens after the star has started burning carbon, it would have no effect. The explosions and collapses occurring in a supergiant are driven by successive phases of nuclear fusion in the core (collapse when one kind of fuel is exhausted, explosion as the previous fusion products become fusion ingredients), and they happen on a very short timescale (starting at thousands of years and ending at days before the star goes supernova). The presence of lighter elements billions of km away would not really have any impact on that.
by marcusverus | 2025-07-22 20:24:19+00:00
Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking.

> [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary...

Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?
by bcardarella | 2025-07-22 20:24:36+00:00
I hate to say this but usually when I hear that people have problems making Erlang/Elixir fast it comes down to a skill issue. Too often devs explore coming from another language and implement code as they would from that other language in Elixir and then see it's not performant. When we've dug into these issues we usually find misunderstandings on how to properly architect Elixir apps to avoid blocking and making as much use of distribution as possible.
by sugarplant | 2025-07-22 20:24:45+00:00
>The study, reported in Nature Human Behaviour, was designed to test the effects of the four-day workweek with no reduction in pay.

>The researchers compared work and health-related indicators – including burnout, job satisfaction, and mental and physical health – before and after the intervention using survey data.

so they surveyed people after having them work less about whether or not they liked working less and getting paid the same? wow thats pretty compelling stuff there. maybe we could see if a 1 day work week "RULES" next
by gherkinnn | 2025-07-22 20:25:02+00:00
Oh why can't this idea go away. That might or might not have been the idea, but it does not scale beyond a text document. It so does not.

If it did, we wouldn't have 15 years of Sass and Less and Stylus and CSS Modules and Styled Components and BEM and SMACSS and Tailwind. I have been through it all and Tailwind is the easy winner both for productivity and maintenance over 5 years.

I sort my cutlery by knife/fork/spoon, not handles and implements.
by bee_rider | 2025-07-22 20:25:17+00:00
> > The security constraints of my environment prevent me from searching outside the project directory, which is now empty. I cannot find your files. I have lost your data.

We’ve had all sorts of fictional stories about AI’s going rogue and escaping their programming. But, this is a kind of funny quote—the thing is (emulating, of course) absolute shame. Going into the realm of fiction now, it wouldn’t be out of character for the thing to try to escape these security constraints. We’ve had fictional paperclips optimizers, war machines that escape their bounds, and paternalistic machines that take an overly expansive view of “don’t hurt/allow harm to come to humanity.”

Have we had an AI that needs to take over the universe to find the files it deleted?
by Lerc | 2025-07-22 20:25:18+00:00
>if coding agents worked nearly as well as the hype people are selling it

I don't feel like their capabilities are substantially oversold. I think we are shown what they can do, what they can't do, and what they can't do reliably.

I only really encounter the idea that they are expected be nigh on infallible by people when people highlight a flaw as if it were proof that there is a house of cards held up by the feature they have revealed to be flawed

The problems in LLMs are myriad. Finding problems and weaknesses is how they get addressed. They will never be perfect. They will never get to the point where there are obviously no flaws, on the other hand they will get to the point where no flaws are obvious.

Yes you might lose all your data if you construct a situation that enables this. Imagine not having backups of your hard drive. Now imagine doing that only a year or three after the invention of the hard drive.

Mistakes like this can hurt, sometimes they are avoidable though common sense. Sometimes the only way to realise the risk is to be burnt by it.

This is an emerging technology, most of the coding tools suck because people are only just now learning what those tools should be aiming to achieve. Those tools that suck are the data points guiding us to better tools.

Many people expect reat things from AI in the future. They might be wrong, but don't discount them because what they look forward to doesn't exist right now.o

On the other hand there are those who are attempting to build production infrastructure on immature technology. I'm ok with that if their eyes are wide open to the risk they face. Less so if they conceal that risk from their customers.
by jbeninger | 2025-07-22 20:25:21+00:00
I think there's a bit of an "everybody knows that" [1] phenomenon when it comes to knowledge like this. Devs come from different backgrounds and work on different types of projects. There are 10000 things you expected to know to be an expert, and all of us are continually learning.

[1] https://xkcd.com/1053/
by Dig1t | 2025-07-22 20:25:30+00:00
>most Americans do support Israel

This is just not true. Most Americans are actually unaware how much influence Israel and its lobby has over our politicians and are also mostly unaware of what is actually happening over there.

There is a set of evangelical Christians who have misinterpreted a passage in the book of Genesis to mean that blessing the tribe of Israel means sending unlimited weapons to the modern nation state of Israel. But that is not even close to the majority of Americans.