MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zihotki | 2025-07-04 22:49:08+00:00
I haven't used the latter two. The Claude Code experience is very well translatable to Copilot and they are similar in features. There were not many examples of Github Copilot advanced usage like described in the article when Agent mode was just released (around 2 months ago?). But I was able to fully utilize it using Claude Code prompts and examples.

Copilot has a very direct advantage in my eyes - it has a plenty of models available: Sonnet 3.7, 4, GPT, Gemini, etc. That's something you won't get with the latter two.
by bigyabai | 2025-07-04 22:50:27+00:00
> Pretty much all upscalers force TAA for anti-aliasing and it makes the entire image on the screen look blurry as fuck the lower the resolution is.

I feel like this is a misunderstanding, though I admit I'm splitting hairs here. DLSS is a form of TAA, and so is FSR and most other modern upscalers. You generally don't need an extra antialiasing pipeline if you're getting an artificially supersampled image.

We've seen this technique variably developed across the lifespan of realtime raster graphics; first with checkerboard rendering, then TAA, then now DLSS/frame generation. It has upsides and downsides, and some TAA implementations were actually really good for the time.
by benreesman | 2025-07-04 22:51:03+00:00
If you're a systems thinker who can see the future then you can prove it in trading basically anything.

The number of people who have done this is vanishingly small (and skeptics raise credible objections about even the best examples).

Jim Simons was such a man, and (to the satisfaction of most) proved it. Some might say the same of Buffet. After that a list that started controversial rapidly gets into the zero consensus asymptote.

So if you genuinely believe that your systems thinking prowess is prescient in its scope like something out of a Herbert novel, I can point you the narrow way through: get an account on Interactive Brokers and ascend!
by codingdave | 2025-07-04 22:51:26+00:00
> Things like usage-based billing, managing credits, LLM streaming (with session resuming), user behavior analytics, and integrations with multiple model providers all add a lot of overhead before you can even focus on the product itself.

That doesn't make sense to me. The product needs should dictate whether or not you need those things. You shouldn't be boiler plating them in without a product-driven reason. So if you found the need and are responding to that need... you are focusing on the product.
by ThrowOregonAway | 2025-07-04 22:52:26+00:00
Hint - it existed long before they claim it did. I have found similar recipes for dressing going back hundreds of years.

Also what's with the lazy restauranteurs allowing their employees to serve lettuce without even chopping it? That's a deal breaker for me, if I am expected to chop the lettuce myself I'm ordering tap water only and no food and never ever EVER going back lol.
by pixl97 | 2025-07-04 22:52:57+00:00
I mean, most people probably won't directly upgrade. Their old card will die, or eventually nvidia will stop making drivers for it. Unless you're looking around for used cards, the price difference between something low end like a 3060 isn't that much less in price for the length of support you're going to get.

Unless nvidia's money printing machine breaks soon, expect the same to continue for the next 3+ years. Crappy expensive cards with a premium on memory with almost no actual video rendering performance increase.
by simonw | 2025-07-04 22:53:25+00:00
> "Prompt engineers" will tell you that some specific ways of prompting some specific models will result in a "better result"... without any criteria for what a "better result" might signify.

That's what evals are for. The best developers working on LLM applications are the ones who are addressing the problem described in this quote. Here's a recent thread about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44430117
by NotAnOtter | 2025-07-04 22:53:25+00:00
>You should remain open to new things in this industry

I'm open to new things. I've seen demo's, attended presentations, and spent a long time toying around with it myself. I have not been convinced there is any meat there, not in it's current iteration. LLM's are designed to make things that "look" like human output and thus are very good at hiding bugs. It's ok at getting the first 20% of the project done, but that was never the hard part. It's always been the last 20%, and modern LLM's simply cannot do it. Not on large scale projects.

New things have come and gone. So far the only thing I'm convinced of is, it's easier to get funding when you can claim you use AI. That's it.

> I have never copy and pasted code into development from an LLM/AI helper

Well that's simply a different reality from what my employer is encouraging. So not relevant. They not only want us to copy-and-paste, they want us to delete otherwise functional code to make it easier to paste in AI generated stuff.

Asking questions is fine, that's much much closer to an augmented search engine than prompt engineering. You're describing something different from what this post is about.

>5 years is not what I would consider a big bargaining chip

I'm not bragging. I'm giving context. If I was 0 yoe or 20 yoe, those would be relevant too. And for what it's worth, I also started in middle school.

>one leadership away from asking their employees the same thing your employer is

Yeah that's probably true
by GeneralMayhem | 2025-07-04 22:53:27+00:00
I don't think that's the point. If non-technical people are able to make a product happen by asking a machine to do it for them, that's fine. But they're not engineering. It simply means that engineering is no longer required to make such a product. Engineering is the act of solving problems. If there are no problems to solve, then maybe you've brought about the product, but you haven't "engineered" it.

I don't think that memorizing arcane Linux CLI invocations is "engineering" either, to be clear.
by koverstreet | 2025-07-04 22:54:37+00:00
> Then what you do is you try to split your work in two. You could think of a stopgap measure or a workaround which is small, can be reviewed easily, and will reduce the impact of the bug while not being a "proper" fix, and prepare the "properer" fix when the merge window opens.

That is indeed what I normally do. For example, 6.14 and 6.15 had people discovering btree iterator locking bugs (manifesting as assertion pops) while running evacuates on large filesystems (it's hard to test a sufficiently deep tree depth in virtual machine tests with our large btree nodes); some small hotfixes went out in rc kernels, but the majority of the work (a whole project to add assertions for path->should_be_locked, which should shut these down for good) waited until the 6.16 merge window.

That was for a less critical bug - your machine crashing is somewhat less severe than losing a filesystem.

In this case, we had a bug pop up in 6.15 where the link count in the VFS inode getting screwed up caused an inode to be deleted that shouldn't have been - a subvolume root - and then an untested repair path took out the entire subvolume.

Ouuuuch.

That's why the repair code was rushed; it had already gotten one filesystem back, and I'd just gotten another report of someone else hitting it - and for every bug report there are almost always more people who hit it and don't report it.

And considering that a lot of people running bcachefs now are getting it from distro kernels and don't know how to build kernels - that is why it was important to get this out quickly through the normal channels.

In addition, the patch wasn't risky, contrary to what Ted was saying. It's a code path that's very well covered by automated tests, including KASAN/UBSAN/lockdep variants - those would exploded if this patch was incorrect.

When to ship a patch is always a judgement call, and part of how you make that call is how well your QA process can guarantee the patch is correct. Part of what was going on here is a disconnect between those of us who do make heavy use of modern QA infrastructure and those who do it the old school way, relying heavily on manual review and long testing periods for rc kernels.
by timewizard | 2025-07-04 22:55:38+00:00
> a lot of our technology is sheer accident , serendipity, the way the cards happened to fall

What an absurd ahistorical fallacy.

> but thanks to mindwarping science fictional yellow-covered literature

Thanks to this you seem to have a confused and fantastical idea of the past and of our future.

> Imagine the pleasure of discovering one of these nice radioactive time-bombs six thousand years from now. Imagine the joy of selfless, dedicated archaeologists burrowing into one of these twentieth-century pharaoh's tombs and dropping dead, slowly and painfully.

Nonsensical. Uranium is part of the Earth's crust. There are plentiful natural deposits that already exist.

Aside from that it's not as if archaeology of ancient kingdom sites is perfectly safe now. There are various airborne health and physical hazards in doing this work.

> Shouldn't we give some thought to leaving them a legacy a little less lethal and offensive than our giant fossilized landfills and the radioactive fallout layer in the polar snows?

Peace requires prosperity. I'd trade all the land wars in history and those to come for some nuclear waste.
by cherioo | 2025-07-04 22:56:18+00:00
High end GPU has over the last 5 years slowly turning from an enthusiast product into a luxury product.

5 or maybe 10 years ago, high-end GPU are needed to run games at reasonably eye candy setting. In 2025, $500 mid-range GPUs are more than enough. Folks all over can barely tell between High and Ultra settings, DLSS vs FSR, or DLSS FG and Lossless Scaling. There's just no point to compete at $500 price point any more, that Nvidia has largely given up and relegating to the AMD-built Consoles, and integrated graphics like AMD APU, that offer good value in low-end, medium-end, and high-end.

Maybe the rumored Nvidia PC, or the Switch 2, can bring some resurgence.
by ionwake | 2025-07-04 22:56:25+00:00
I don’t want to jump on nvidia but I found it super weird when they clearly remote controlled a Disney bot onto the stage and claimed it was all using real time AI which was clearly impossible due to no latency and weirdly the bot verifying correct stage position in relation to the presenter. It was obviously the Disney bot just being controlled by someone off stage.

I found it super alarming because why would they fake something on stage to the extent of just lying.i know Steve jobs had backup phones but jsut claiming a robot is autonomous when it isn’t I just feel it was scammy.

It reminded me of when Tesla had remote controlled Optimus bots. I mean I think that’s awesome like super cool but clearly the users thought the robots were autonomous during that dinner party.

I have no idea why I seem to be the only person bothered by “stage lies” to this level. Tbh even the Tesla bots weren’t claimed to be autonomous so actually I should never have mentioned them but it explains the “not real” vibe.

Not meaning to disparage just explaining my perception as a European maybe it’s just me though!

EDIT > Im kinda suprised by the weak arguments in the replies, I love both companies, I am just offering POSITIVE feedback, that its important ( in my eyes ) to be careful not to pretend in certain specific ways or it makes the viewer question the foundation ( which we all know is SOLID and good ).

EDIT 2 >There actually is a good rebuttal in the replies, although apparently I have "reading comprehension skill deficiencies" its just my pov that they were insinuating the robot was aware of its surroundings, which is fair enough.
by worik | 2025-07-04 22:57:19+00:00
I do not understand

I cannot get one of these x86 computers for twice the price of a fully pimped RPi5

Even second hand they are usually twice the price

$/mips may be a different story, but RPi5 has way more than I need, so I care about capital cost in total

Is there some class of computer I am ignoring? This just seems so wrong
by piptastic | 2025-07-04 22:57:33+00:00
not quite the same scale area wise, but interesting nonetheless https://www.archdaily.com/973183/the-building-that-moved-how...

As for your actual question, I'm pretty sure we (US, Europe, humans in general) could do quite a bit more than we do now if we had a reason to do so. (or were 100% sure about the results)
by bigyabai | 2025-07-04 22:57:44+00:00
Now you are the one making reaching speculation. As far as we know, these people are conspiring to do the exact same thing because the present damages has been $0 in fines/legal fees and a reasonably successful seed round. In terms of game theory, there is zero reason to give them benefit of the doubt until they are sat in a court hearing for the infraction. They ventured nothing and gained everything.

If you want to convince people to steer away from ad-hominem, don't get all touchy-feely from the thought of a business breaking the law.
by palata | 2025-07-04 22:58:01+00:00
> Such a simple task but first I have to learn 3 layers of compilers and builder and uggggghhhh.

I just write a few lines in a CMakeLists and compile C++ code, I don't see where you need "3 layers of compilers and builder and ugggggghhhh".

But I see a lot of C++ projects out there that have a mess of CMakeLists and are impossible to compile. When that happens inside my company, I just rewrite the CMakeLists and remove all the mess, and voila. Then guess what? Some other developer suddenly needs to add a dependency, doesn't take 10s to see how I dealt with dependencies and adds 200 lines of mess for their own dependency. And then they complain about CMake.

And I have actually seen that: I "fixed" a project to bring it down to something like 40 lines of CMakeLists for 10 dependencies. The next dev changed that to 250 lines by adding an 11th dependency and complained about CMake. I changed it back to 43 lines for 11 dependencies. I did it in 3 lines, they did it in 210 and didn't even realised they were wrong. You could say "sure, but they learned from the next time". Nope, they did the same mess in other projects.
by calf | 2025-07-04 22:58:52+00:00
You said that classic LLMs have no inductive bias for causality. So I am simply asking if any computer scientist has actually proved that. Otherwise it is just a fancy way of saying "LLMs can't reason, they are just stochastic parrots". AFAIK not every computer scientist shares that consensus. So to use that claim is to potentially smuggle in an assumption that is not scientifically settled. That's why I specifically asked about this claim which you made a few paragraphs into your response to the parent commenter.
by mlinsey | 2025-07-04 22:59:19+00:00
12 months ago, we had no reasoning models and even very basic arithmetic was outside of the models' grasp. Coding assistants mostly worked on the level of tab-completing individual functions, but now I can one-shot demo-able prototypes (albeit nothing production-ready) of webapps. I assume you consider the latter "integration", but I think coding is so key to how the base models are being trained that this is due to base model improvements too. This is testable - it would be interesting to get something like Claude Code running on top of a year-old open source model and see how it does.

If you're going to call all of that not substantial improvement, we'll have to agree to disagree. Certainly it's the most rapid rate of improvement of any tech I've personally seen since I started programming in the early '00s.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-04 23:00:49+00:00
> I really don't understand what Ad Nauseam is trying to achieve. It honestly seems like it benefits Google more than it hurts them.

Google is part of the problem, but they're neither the only ones nor best to target through bottom-up approaches.

> It directly hurts advertisers, but not enough that it would stop anyone from advertising.

You know the saying about XML - if it doesn't solve the problem, you are not using enough of it.

> there's nothing I can do as an advertiser. We can't stop advertising...

We know. The whole thing is a cancer[0], a runaway negative feedback loop. No single enlightened advertiser can do anything about it unilaterally. Which is why the pressure needs to go up until ~everyone wants change.

--

[0] - https://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html
by dcrazy | 2025-07-04 23:01:24+00:00
In 1930 they moved an entire telephone exchange in Indianapolis without even taking it offline: https://indianahistory.org/blog/instead-of-moving-mountains-...

The technology in this video appears to be computer control of the many pistons underneath the raised block. I would estimate that could be done with roughly 1970s-level of technology.
by leakycap | 2025-07-04 23:01:26+00:00
> Unless you're looking around for used cards, the price difference between something low end like a 3060 isn't that much less in price for the length of support you're going to get.

This does not somehow give purchasers more budget room now, but they can buy 30-series cards in spades and not have to worry about the same heating and power deliveries as a little bonus.
by randycupertino | 2025-07-04 23:01:38+00:00
At work this week I clocked one of the chief cardiologists I work with using chat GPT for comparing literature around the ideal temperature and fixation time for finding amyloid deposits in skin biopsy samples. He is an arrogant, dry, humorless type who is always grumpy and known for being a pain in my ass and incredibly brilliant and suddenly I have an email from him laden with emojis before bullet points and "It's not just blah - it's blah" writing style. It was classic ChatGPT explanation style and I KNOW it's like that because sometimes I ask ChatGPT to explain confusing work concepts to me and it does the same exact layout with the same emojis before bulleted sections.

It actually made me enjoy him a little bit more because normally he is huge arrogant jerk so it gave me pleasure to see him have a human foibles of relying on chatgpt for his output.
by tptacek | 2025-07-04 23:01:55+00:00
In a 16oz deli (or a measuring cup):

A yolk, a tsp of dijon, pepper, little salt, juice half a lemon, couple dashes of Worcestershire, couple anchovy filets, half a garlic clove.

Blend homogenous with a stick blender. Then slowly blend in a stream of neutral oil; get it to mayonnaise consistency. Taste and adjust (probably wants pepper). Then: back it out to dressing consistency with water (or lemon juice) a tsp at a time. [†]

Knobs (do any/all/none): grate pecorino or parm, just a bit, into the dressing in the first stage. Double, triple, or quadruple the anchovies. Add some white wine vinegar along with the lemon juice. Microplane the garlic (careful, will really amp the garlic). Before thinning back to dressing consistency with water, add some extra virgin. Pinch of MSG.

If you're being hardcore (ie date night), before you start the dressing, fill a ziploc with ice and put it in your salad bowl, and put your serving bowls in the freezer. Also hardcore: use half as much garlic, and make up the difference with 2x as much garlic confit.

Don't do the thing where you build the dressing on the salad (like, cracking an egg into the bowl or whatever). It's a parlor trick, not a way to dial in the ideal Caesar. Also don't bother with the "rub the garlic into the salad bowl" thing; just makes it harder to dose the garlic.

Extra tip: freshly roasted brussels sprouts love Caesar dressing. (Roasted brussels sprouts love any bright high-fat sauce; Caesar is just the platonic ideal.)

Keeps about a week in the fridge, but each time you use it, refresh the acid (just a splash or lemon juice or vinegar).

(I make a lot of Caesars).

Take a step back and see a Caesar as an anchovy vinaigrette, and then you can immediately vary it to different settings --- lime instead of lemon, add some chile (or aji amarillo), tortilla instead of croutons, fresca instead of parm.

[†] You can also just blend neutral oil in until you get the dressing consistency you want; theoretically you'll get a better texture and a little more flavor concentration this way, but I think the win is marginal vs. being able to knock this dressing out mechanically without thinking hard about it, and you can just dial up the flavors a bit beforehand if you're worried.
by Dirkshirt | 2025-07-04 23:01:58+00:00
Installed on the RG34xxSP. My biggest issue was a common one. Correct bios, Correct bios placement and bad roms. Was able to run, Naomi, Atomiswave, CDI, PSP. Although not all Naomi games launched. Still can't get Daphne to work. I don't really need it but its always such a pain it becomes a point of pride. I also have the miyoo flip with Surwish. Daphane works but no CDI. Also the interface looks like l made it on a windows 98 using clip art. Otherwise it's the same. L prefer Rocknix. The other issue is easy to a access the retroarch files, etc. With rocknix you can't just plug the sd card into a windows device but with Surwish you can. I am guessing I'm not talking to noobies so you already know more then one way to access the files. If not ask here or Google. FYI. I don't know this dude or get paid but if you have the flip a guy named xs4all4me on Re dit came up with a fix for the stock os that runs ES and it's on Par with Surwish and with help could easily be the best. If l knew how ld help him.
by ineedasername | 2025-07-04 23:01:59+00:00
Prompting "ChatGPT" is very different than prompting LLMs. For the latter, whether you want to use the E word or not, every one of the unknowns the author cites either don't exist or are greatly reduced when you're using LLMs to construct something purpose-built.

Anyone working in tech should take a few hours, download LangFlow and choose a small model in ollama and just run one of the template flows and peek at their prompt setups. Maybe the author just chose a poor title, there's so much writing like this that is the equivalent of saying "Drills can't make good holes" when what you mean is the $15 harbor freight special hooked up to a janky power source and unsteady hand.
by dylan604 | 2025-07-04 23:02:31+00:00
That’s my default as well. Self hosted/1st party scripts can load, but 3rd party scripts are blocked. The vast majority of sites work this way. If a site doesn’t work because they must have a 3rd party script to work, I tend to just close the tab. I really don’t feel like it has caused me to miss anything. There’s usually 8 other sites with the same data in a slightly less hostile site