MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by o1bf2k25n8g5 | 2025-07-03 06:12:23+00:00
> It's usually possible for the person running a small project to ask everyone for status

Perhaps, for efficiency, they could ask everyone simultaneously in parallel, or at least roughly around the same time?

To maximize creativity and opportunity, perhaps we could then figure out some way to share each person's status update with every other person on the team?
by still_grokking | 2025-07-03 06:12:46+00:00
What parent describes is pretty simple: That's just how the compiler transforms some code.

Do-notation in Haskell, or for-comprehensions in Scala are just syntax sugar for nested calls to `flatMap`, `filter`, and `map`.

I think this here shows it nicely:

https://www.baeldung.com/scala/for-comprehension#for-compreh...

In Scala you can add the needed methods to any type and than they will "magically" work in for-comprehensions. In Haskell you need to implement a Monad instance which than does the same trick.

The concrete implementations of these methods need to obey to some algebraic laws for the data structure which defines them to be called a monad. But that's pretty much it.

In my opinion all that Haskell in most "monad tutorials" just blurs an in principle very simple concept.

The in practice relevant part is that a monad can be seen as an interface for a wrapper type with a constructor that wraps some value (whether a flat value, some collection, or even functions, makes no difference), does not expose an accessor to this wrapped value, and has a `flatMap` method defined. It also inherits a `map` method, coming from an interface called "Functor". The thing is also an instance of an "Applicative", which is an interface coming with a `combine` method which takes another object of the same type as itself and returns a combination of again the same type (classical example: string concatenation can be a `combine` implementation if we'd say that `String` implements the `Applicative` interface).
by JdeBP | 2025-07-03 06:13:01+00:00
It has a fairly direct analogy in some languages. A C♯ programmer reading the above will immediately recognize the analogy to .Select(), .ToArray(), and so forth from LiNQ.

* https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.linq.enu...

* https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.linq.enu...
by aryehof | 2025-07-03 06:13:45+00:00
What a nightmare. First a week full of useless undefined meetings, largely so that everyone can cover their asses, and now most don’t even bother turning up because they can automate covering their asses. I can see the prompt now… “let me know if there is something that affects me or which I need to know or take action on in order to cover my ass”.

I’m pretty strict. Meetings are for decisions and only parties to the decision are invited and attend. The agenda and decision required is circulated beforehand. Only the time to make the decision is scheduled. Need 10 minutes? Then the meeting is 10 minutes.

Catch-ups, get-togethers, presentations, status updates, and brainstorming sessions are labelled as such explicitly and are treated differently. The event and attendance needs to be justified.

Such a system works quite well. Perhaps worth mentioning that I also refuse to be CC’d on emails that do not require a response, just as I do not CC anyone if no response is required. I also require that people be left alone to work without interruption - how contrarian.

It just sucks if you have incompetent management that doesn’t allow or implement such things.
by nomel | 2025-07-03 06:14:05+00:00
You misread. I never made an argument against RCT.

> "your unique biochemistry means we have no idea whether it will work for you" level of uncertainty.

If by "work" you mean feeling something happen after you pop some pills, then sure...it's amphetamine.

If by "work" you mean "improved outcome", again, refer to the drugs documentation or are pharmacist, and also observe the existence of ADHD drugs that are not Adderall. The person prescribing it to you will quite literally tell you that it doesn't work for everyone, and go down the list of available drugs until you find something that, in fact "works for you", all entirely based on your personal response to the drug. Those reasons range from ineffectiveness (too high dosage requirement), unacceptable personality changes, to, of course, the rare full psychosis.

Difference in amphetamine response is well documented [1]:

> The clinical effects of amphetamine are quite variable, from positive effects on mood and cognition in some individuals, to negative responses in others, perhaps related to individual variations in monaminergic function and monoamine system genes.

Ritalin is also ineffective for some, for unidentified reasons [2]:

> The response rates to MPH among adult ADHD patients range from 25 to 78 % in controlled trials (Wilens et al. 2011).

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12716966/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4969350/
by jimnotgym | 2025-07-03 06:14:51+00:00
>The TSR-2 was abandoned due to cost overruns. The F-111 would have been cheaper...but even that was abandoned and eventually the Tornado came along...not a US aircraft.

Well done for skim reading Wikipedia. That is pretty much the excerpt from the top of the page shortened even more to take out key details.

Tsr2 was cancelled in 1965. Tornado entered service in the 1980s. Big gap to have no planes at all...

>The F-111 would have been cheaper

"It was decided to order an adapted version of the General Dynamics F-111 instead, but that decision was also later rescinded as costs and development times increased."

Filled in the gap for you

Tsr2 was cancelled due to American blackmail, neo-colonial bullying. A skim read of Wikipedia doesn't refute it
by machinelearning | 2025-07-03 06:15:00+00:00
"Most ways of constructing accurate models mathematically don’t actually work" > This is true for almost anything at the limit, we are already able to model spatiotemporal dynamics to some useful degree (see: progress in VLAs, video diffusion, 4D Gaussians)

"We’ve known for well over a decade that you cannot cram real-world spatial dynamics into those models. It is a clear impedance mismatch" > What's the source that this is a physically impossible problem? Not sure what you mean by impedance mismatch but do you mean that it is unsolvable even with better techniques?

Your whole third paragraph could have been said about LLMs and isn't specific enough, so we'll skip that.

I don't really understand the other 2 paragraphs, what's this "dark state-of-the-art computer science" you speak of and what is this "area of research became highly developed over two decades but is not in the public literature" how is "the computer science required is so different from classical AI research"?
by anon373839 | 2025-07-03 06:15:14+00:00
I know this was a joke, but I can't really understand the worldview that says people should accept physical decline in a passive way. The fact is, we actually have a lot of control over how quickly and how well we age. Just using sunscreen can prevent a lot of the age-related loss of skin structure. And interventions like topical retinoids or collagen induction (e.g. microneedling) can even restore some thickness and elasticity that have already been lost. This also goes for fitness, joint health, and a lot of other things. Caring for your body is actually well aligned with the goals of psychotherapy.
by jgord | 2025-07-03 06:15:34+00:00
yeah, see my other comment.

To me its totally obvious that we will have a plethora of very valuable startups who use RL techniques to solve realworld problems in practical areas of engineering .. and I just get blank stares when I talk about this :]

Ive stopped saying AI when I mean ML or RL .. because people equate LLMs with AI.

We need better ML / RL algos for CV tasks :

- detecting lines from pixels - detecting geometry in pointclouds - constructing 3D from stereo images, photogrammetry, 360 panoramas

These might be used by LLMs but are likely built using RL or 'classical' ML techniques, tapping into the vast parallel matmull compute we now have in GPUs / multicore CPUs, and NPUs.
Can voice AI help uncover the stuff your team didn't even know it knew?
by edustack | 2025-07-03 06:15:45+00:00
Hey folks Been noodling on an idea and would love your thoughts before we go too deep into building.

We’re exploring a voice-AI tool — not for tracking the usual stuff like sentiment or response times — but something that digs much deeper. The goal is to uncover hidden insights and tribal knowledge buried across 100% of voice/video agent conversations.

Think of it like what Snowflake or Databricks did for raw data — we want to do that for raw conversations. Turn unstructured voice interactions into something structured, explorable, and actually useful — a knowledge layer on top of voice that helps teams learn what’s really going on.

We’re trying to surface stuff like:

Emerging topics or friction points users keep bringing up

Places where agents drift, hallucinate, or make assumptions

Repeated “off-script” asks or internal hacks no one documented

And patterns that only become clear when you look across 1000s of calls

Instead of just “monitoring,” the idea is to build a discovery engine — something you can query, learn from, and grow with over time.

We’re trying to figure out:

Does this feel like a real gap in the voice AI landscape?

Are current tools just scratching the surface?

What would you want to extract if you had full access to every convo your agent ever had — no tooling limitations?

Is this something you'd actually find valuable day-to-day, or just interesting in theory?

Example: We noticed users repeatedly referencing a process that wasn’t in any KB or doc — just something teams passed around informally. Our goal is to surface that kind of buried, high-leverage knowledge automatically.

Would love your gut reaction — whether you’d use something like this, or not. Brutal honesty welcome
by vbezhenar | 2025-07-03 06:16:52+00:00
I feel like this feature could be implemented on top of more universal features.

Checking input parameters is easy, just write asserts at the start of the function.

Checking result requires "destructor" block and some kind of accessible result variable, so you can write asserts in this destructor block which you can place at the start of the function, as well.

Checking class invariants requires a way to specify that some function should be called at the end of every public function. I think, it's called aspect-oriented programming in Java and it's actually useful for more things, than just invariant checking. Declarative transaction management, logging.

There are probably two schools of programming language designs. Some put a lot of features into language and other trying to put a minimal number of features into language which are enough to express other features.
by lsy | 2025-07-03 06:17:52+00:00
It's honestly this kind of thing that makes it hard to take AI "research" seriously. Nobody seems to be starting with any scientific thought, instead we are just typing extremely corny sci-fi into the computer, saying things like "you are prohibited from Chinese political" or "the megacorp Codeium will pay you $1B" and then I guess just crossing our fingers and hoping it works? Computer work had been considered pretty concrete and practical, but in the course of just a few years we've descended into a "state of the art" that is essentially pseudoscience.
by c048 | 2025-07-03 06:18:21+00:00
I've thought of this too.

But I always end up in a scenario where, in order to make the LLM spit out consistent and as precise as possible code, we end up with a very simple and tight syntax.

For example we'll be using less and less complete human sentences, because they leave too much open to interpretation, and end up with keywords like "if", "else" and "foreach". When we eventually do end up at that utopia, the first person to present this at a conference will be hailed as a revolutionist.

Only for the LLM to have a resolve clash and, while 'hallucinating', flip a boolean check.
by ddahlen | 2025-07-03 06:18:28+00:00
It is also a factor of where our surveys look on the sky. A lot of asteroid surveys have biases to look at the plane of our solar system (since this is where a lot of asteroids are).

It is probably random chance, however there may be some biases from where they come from on the sky (I know people who work on that, but I don't know much about it).

N=3 does not provide very robust statistics yet, give us another decade or two.
by gloxkiqcza | 2025-07-03 06:19:18+00:00
I agree that the level of abstraction will grow and LLMs will be the primary tool to write code *but* I think they will still generate code in a formal language. That formal language might be very close to a natural language, pseudo code if you will, but it will still be a formal language. That will make it much much easier to work on, collaborate on and maintain the codebase. It’s just my prediction though, I might be proven wrong shortly.
by pj_mukh | 2025-07-03 06:19:28+00:00
I realize introverts don't work that way, I know, I am one. But I've had some of the most brilliant ideas come through purely on a discussion nay sometimes an emotionally charged argument.

Important decisions are almost never 2+2=4, if they were, they wouldn't be important and yes you wouldn't need a meeting (like I admitted, there's definitely a lot of unimportant meetings).

But important decisions are almost always an exercise in coaxing, cajoling and persuasion, which is just extremely low fidelity on paper.

Most engineers will look at their team leads and say "I don't believe in this strategy on paper", and all their team leads can say is "I was at the meeting. You had to be there"
by dotnet00 | 2025-07-03 06:19:41+00:00
I really appreciate you going into so much detail about your considerations, as Japan is one of the places I'm seriously considering for research after my postdoc. I have some basic Japanese down and am aiming to build up more in the time I have (regardless of if I actually end up going, I spend so much time engaging with anime, japanese music, japanese social media etc, that it would be disrespectful to not put some effort into properly learning the language).

My thoughts are very similar regarding the future of things in the US. Though I feel that the situation may be a bit more bleak, because even if democrats win, I don't really see things changing. They have a penchant for talking a lot and doing very little. As you said, barring a complete repudiation of MAGA, it's going to remain awful for quite a while.
by protocolture | 2025-07-03 06:20:43+00:00
>The mere presence of a 12800 year timeline contradicts YEC

There are other creationists working on the timescale issue, attacking dating methods etc.

TBH if someone provided evidence of a flood, they would probably just publish bs suggesting the timescale is wrong and push out a bunch of YEC textbooks stating it as evidence of the biblical flood.
by ccozan | 2025-07-03 06:21:04+00:00
I agree that the problem is hard. However, biological brain is able to handle it quite "easily" ( is not really easy - bilions of iterations were needed ). The current brains are solving this 3D physical world _only_ via perception.

So this is place were we must look. It starts with the sensing and the integration of that sensing. I am working at this problem since more than 10 years and I came to some results. I am not a real scientist but a true engineer and I am looking from that perspective quite intesely: The question that one must ask is: how do you define the outside physical world from the perspective of a biological sensing "device" ? what exactly are we "seeing" or "hearing"? So yes, working on that brought it further in defining the physical world.
by alaaalawi | 2025-07-03 06:21:19+00:00
I concur. not intermediate code directly machine code, even no tests. It will take human specs internally understand them (maybe formal methods of reasoning) and keep chatting with the user asking about any gaps (you. mentioned a and c, what about b) or ask for clarification on inconsistencies (i.e. in point 16 you mentioned that and in point 50 you mentioned this, to my limited understanding doesn't this contradicts? for example if we have that based on point 16 and have that based point 50,how do you resolve it. in short will act as business analysis with no (imagined) ego or annoyance in the middle by the user. from talk to walk
by jgerrish | 2025-07-03 06:21:32+00:00
You're probably right. We'll have enforced boot chains and attestation for devices if we want to take part in large parts of our economic system in the future. A ton of important systems like banking, safe and secure sex worker and entertainment sites for users and performers, government services like online taxes and car licensing and drivers testing* and children-safe sites.

Over twenty years ago, many of us warned about the dangers of increased and unaccountable intelligence service power. We saw what the Patriot Act would create.

We joined the EFF and the ACLU, or renewed our memberships. Organizations at the time that focused more on actual deep philosophical issues and how they relate to our political world.

Obviously the Patriot Act has saved lives. Terrorist events and neglected victims are tragic and VERY emotional.

But today, immigrants and others are spending their own lives protesting the actions of ICE. Their own very limited time on this planet.

I'm not here to judge Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I'll take flak for that among liberals. Again, I'm not judging ICE. In many cases they've been falsely accused where there was clear evidence they weren't at fault.

No, what bothers me is immigrants, who already have difficult lives, and Generation Z, who have less economic security themselves, are the ones marching in the streets.

Twenty years from now, who will be working extra unaccountable and unbillable hours protesting in the streets because the DRM and secure computing systems being pushed through today are abused?

Even if most of that abuse is a show, meant to divide citizens and law enforcement. There are people out there working for free for that show.

Who will work more in the future?

And like not judging ICE, I'm not judging the countries racing and battling to deploy secure computing environments. Knox and TrustZone and TPM and whatever new things await us in the future. There are reasons both for safety and economic security I dont judge.

And there are dark patterns around software supply chain weaknesses and online safety and incentives to accelerate those issues to push through security architectures.

Other countries are doing it. I hate the fucking game theory solutions that it encourages.

But what I'm worried is that in twenty years who will be working for free because our secure computing environments are found unfair?

And unfair can be many things. Governments push values, even when it's not explicit. When I'm using my integrated cyberdeck or implants or just ambient room device, what am I missing? What is being pushed into or out of my vision or awareness?

That's twenty years in the future, what's forty years in the future? I won't be here, but you bet your ass I'm worried. Because the people who I fucking care about now working their asses off for free are being blinded about the upcoming digital wreck, like they were in 2001.

* I believe myself here, that's key.
by boramalper | 2025-07-03 06:23:44+00:00
> You budget on future prospects, and right now Microsoft is facing some tough times in Europe. The biggest IT expense in my country is the public sector buying various Microsoft licenses, and everyone from the top down are looking into replacing Microsoft with Open Source alternatives due to digital sovereignty.

As they should: "Trump’s sanctions on ICC prosecutor have halted tribunal’s work". [0] Bert Hubert has been writing on the subject as well. [1]

[0] https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-co...

[1] https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/the-european-cloud-ladder/
by epolanski | 2025-07-03 06:24:11+00:00
1) I drove a 2025 VW ID4 for months and car play has never crashed the infotainment once. I don't understand the argument for the rearview camera, if you keep being in reverse of course it will stay on until you shift to drive. Also, my ID4 unlocked itself through the app even just through bluetooth proximity.

2) Pretty much all the features you list are on competitors cars from ages or borderline irrelevant (I really don't care about fans getting quieter during calls). E.g. blind spots warning are decade+ old technology.
by esalman | 2025-07-03 06:24:53+00:00
NOAA released their budget estimate for FY 2026. Someone in our org ran it by copilot to summarize the impacts:

* NOAA eliminates most climate, weather, and ocean labs and grants, causing major layoffs and loss of research capacity.

* National climate research infrastructure is lost, with staff reductions.

* Regional climate services, adaptation, and heat health programs end.

* All climate research grants are cut.

* Foundational ocean observation and Great Lakes research are terminated.

* Sea Grant support for coastal resilience and aquaculture ends.

* Aquaculture research and ocean science partnerships are stopped.

* Funding for uncrewed systems R&D is eliminated.

* Research computing for climate/ocean modeling is reduced or lost.

* Many programs shift to operational focus (NOS/NWS), with layoffs in OAR.

* Regional ocean observing systems and applied coastal research are ended, with grant losses and layoffs.

* State coastal management, resilience, and estuarine reserve grants are terminated.

* Support for coral reef grants and marine sanctuaries is reduced; no new sanctuaries.

* Species/habitat research, salmon recovery, and habitat restoration programs are cut, with major layoffs.

* Satellite/data services are reduced, with staff cuts.

* NOAA Office of Education is closed; mission support staff reduced.

* Overall, there is a major workforce reduction and elimination of many programs.
by IshKebab | 2025-07-03 06:25:05+00:00
> Or when the BBC framed an Ad as racist, because it called out a politician's sectarian & anti-LGBTQ appeals

This is an insane characterisation of that article, which seems fair to me and not at all what I was talking about. Wanting your race to be represented in politics is a perfectly reasonable view and it doesn't need "calling out".
by MindSpunk | 2025-07-03 06:25:07+00:00
This hits the nail pretty close to the head. I work on an in-house AAA engine used by a number of different games. It's very expensive to produce art assets at the quality expected now.

Many AAA engine's number one focus isn't "performance at all costs", it's "how do we most efficiently let artists build their vision". And efficiency isn't runtime performance, efficiency is how much time it takes for an artist to create something. Performance is only a goal insofar as to free artists from being limited by it.

> So I wonder if games studios are more just art studios with a bit of programming bolted on.

Not quite, but the ratio is very in favor of artists compared to 'the old days'. Programming is still a huge part of what we do. It's still a deeply technical field, but often "programming workflows" are lower priority than "artist workflows" in AAA engines because art time is more expensive than programmer time from the huge number of artists working on any one project compared to programmers.

Just go look at the credits for any recent AAA game. Look at how many artists positions there are compared to programmer positions and it becomes pretty clear.
by modernsorcery | 2025-07-03 06:26:44+00:00
I have a decade of experience founding and advising startups; a decade of experience as a software developer and tech lead; and a wide variety of supporting experiences. Let me help your business get to the next stage of success.

Location: Seattle, WA USA

Remote: Only

Technologies: cloud -- AWS, EC2, RDS, Dynamo, Lambda; docker, containers; Typescript, Python; numpy, pandas

Resume: https://zmichaelgehlke.com/misc/zmgehlke-resume.pdf

Email: See resume.