MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lubujackson | 2025-07-03 16:39:50+00:00
I think the solution becomes clearer - juniors need to worry less about knowing how to program in a void, since the LLM can handle most of that, but care more about how to produce code that doesn't break things, that doesn't have unintended 2nd order effects, that doesn't add unneeded complexity, etc.

In my experience I see juniors come out of college who can code in isolation as well as me or better. But the difference between jr/sr is much more about integration, accuracy and simplicity than raw code production. If LLMs remove a lot of the hassle of code production I think that will BENEFIT the other elements, since those things will be much more visible.

Personally, I think juniors are going to start emerging with more of a senior mindset. If you don't have to sweat uploading tons of programming errata to your brain you can produce more code abd more quickly need to focus on larger structural challenges. That's a good thing! Yes, they will break large codebases but they have been soing that forever, if given the chance. The difference now is they will start doing that much sooner.
by admash | 2025-07-03 16:39:54+00:00
If you are asserting that Linus Pauling was the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, my doubt in the accuracy of your conclusions has only increased, given that Marie Curie, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger have all won two Nobel Prizes.

https://phys.org/news/2022-10-scientists-won-nobel-prizes.ht...
by rtkwe | 2025-07-03 16:40:20+00:00
The average velocity is that but that's not the true velocity of the rod. As it's passed from person to person it has to briefly stop then the person swings it to the next person in line. Through the Power of Almighty RAW this happens as fast as is required for it to take place in one round but the peasant can only move it that fast to pass it. When thrown the strength abandons them and it's just a peasant throwing a pole; d20+Dex to hit 1d4 on hit 20/60 range(improvised weapon rule).
by vjvjvjvjghv | 2025-07-03 16:40:54+00:00
That's how it often works with offshore code. You get a huge pile of code that meets the spec, so not totally wrong, but with a lot of small issues that are hard to identify. And you as the senior dev are now in a bad situation: since project management has marked the task as "Done" already, you are the bad guy if you reject the code and ask for rework. At some point you are worn down by all the pressure and let the code through and you end up with a growing pile of questionable code that sort of works but requires a ton of maintenance and is hard to change. You can't win.

My only hope is that AI one day will be much better than humans in every aspect and produce super high quality code. I don't see why this wouldn't happen. The current tools are still primitive.
by RedNifre | 2025-07-03 16:40:55+00:00
Strongly disagree. The only instance where autocomplete helped me was a situation where I would have required macros, so I typed out the first 3 cases manually and had autocomplete generate the next 20.

In all other cases, autocomplete was never faster than writing it myself.

Full code generation, where you can step away from the computer for 20 minutes, does save me time.
by laurencerowe | 2025-07-03 16:41:20+00:00
> So the findings here do make sense. For sub 5m cables directly connecting two machines is going to be faster then having some PHY in between that has to resignal. I'm surprised that fiber is only 0.4ns/m worse then their direct copper cables, that is pretty incredible.

Surely resignaling should be the fixed cost they calculate at about 1ns? Why does it also incur a 0.4ns/m cost?
by immibis | 2025-07-03 16:41:33+00:00
Abstracting error checking pays huge dividends, then. In PHP, if something crashes, it continues running and outputs nonsense (probably alright for the simplest of sites but you should turn this off if your thing has any kind of authentication) or it stops processing the page. PHP implicitly runs one process per request (not necessarily an OS process); everything is scoped to the request, and if the request fails it can just release every resource scoped to the request, and continue on. You could do the same in a CGI script by calling exit or abort. With any platform that handles all concurrent requests in a single process, you have to explicitly clean up a bunch of stuff, flush and close the response, and so on.

There's a similar effect in transactional databases - or transactional anything. If you run into any problem, you just abort the transaction and you don't have to care about individual cleanup steps.
by gruez | 2025-07-03 16:42:00+00:00
>There seems to be a lot of talk about relaxing various regulations bought in after the 2008 crash. Did we learn nothing?

"relaxing regulations" =/= not "highly regulated". We can quibble about what the exact amount of regulation is ideal, but I don't think the core concept of "the economy benefits from a banking system that is backstopped by the government, and the government should regulate banks to ensure the backstop isn't being abused" is controversial, contrary to what the parent poster was trying to imply with his "Unless it is a bank, in which case it gets bailed out" comment. Similar thing happens in insurance. If a ship sinks in rough waters the owner gets reimbursed by the insurance company, nobody makes snarky comments about how ship owners are being "bailed out".
by immibis | 2025-07-03 16:42:37+00:00
The people who say they don't want the government to help pay for raising children are the same people who complain about low birth rates. You can't eat your cake and still have it. Would you like sustainable population or would you like low taxes? You can't have both.

Sensible government programs aren't deadweight loss - they are net gains - although a lot of what governments do, especially what the US government does, is not sensible. For example, you pay taxes to have property rights, and I don't think you think that is deadweight loss.

Meanwhile your concern about "why should I pay for someone else?" is literally just insurance but I bet you have insurance, and you only hate insurance when the government does it.
by water-data-dude | 2025-07-03 16:42:48+00:00
Yeah, the whole thing gets messy in an interesting way.

- if the rod travels across 7 light seconds in a round, the only way to avoid breaking relativity is if the 6 seconds the round takes are measured in the frame of reference of the rod

- that would mean that from the frame of reference of the rest of the people/monsters/edgy antiheroes/misunderstood blob creatures, the rod’s “turn” took 7 seconds.

All characters in the D&D universe are accustomed to a reality where each round takes 6 seconds, and everyone - in synchrony - is able to perform an integer number of tasks that fit within that timespan. Rounds begin and end simultaneously for everyone involved in combat. How disturbing would it be for such beings to see those laws broken?
by HaZeust | 2025-07-03 16:43:07+00:00
You’re going to have to make a convincing argument that alerting people of a traffic cop isn’t the same as alerting people of police presence in general, and that the merits of one has more weight for the usage of someone already committing crimes.

As it is, by batting for the legality of alerting traffic checks, you’re already batting for the alert and notification of police presence - because that’s what traffic checks consist of
by psadauskas | 2025-07-03 16:43:43+00:00
All of this is extremely easily fixable, from a technical standpoint. But, every solution would make some rich guy very slightly less rich, so its going to be an uphill battle where we have to fight for each step.

If there's some proposed legislation that would make things notably better for 50 million people, but would cost an insurance company 100 million dollars, then that insurance company can spend any amount less than 100 million fighting the bill and still come out ahead. Even 10 million can buy a lot of lobbyists, and almost guarantee torpedoing the bill.

Meanwhile the 50 million people are working 80 hours/wk across three jobs just to put food on the table, are stressed about how to pay rent, and don't have the personal cell phone number of their congressperson even if they had the time and energy to call them.
by antonvs | 2025-07-03 16:43:52+00:00
Things can seem irrational when you don't understand them.

Another comment in this thread hoped for "a brand new bulletproof tmux-resurrect". The reason there's a desire for such things is closely related to the limitations of non-trivial programs written in C.

They're harder to extend without bugs, harder for new team members to understand, and so on.

The "irrational obsession" has to do with advancing the state of the art beyond a primitive high-level assembler that was developed in the 1970s.
by Tmpod | 2025-07-03 16:44:05+00:00
+1

They should take your velocity vector into account, or something along those lines, to minimize rotations, even when not following a route. It just leads to a ton of unnecessary screen redraws and jerky movement.

Furthermore, as I've been driving in a region with a lot of tunnels, I wish they implemented a better system for when you pass through one while following a route. It animated the arrow for a bit but then stops and only jumps forward when you get out. I wish it would keep going with a speed based on your entry speed (and maybe the tunnel's speed limit, if available), taking the routed exit if there are any forks inside. This would make the happy path much better and would not really worsen accuracy, since it isn't accurate in any way as is right now. You could tweak the arrow's color/shape to indicate it is showing a predicted route.
by chbkall | 2025-07-03 16:44:21+00:00
A bunch of useful insights in your reply. I really liked the insight of User Interfaces getting simpler while developer experience getting more complex. A counter argument that comes to mind is how violin has the most difficult UI - but a lot of people spend lot of time mastering it and enjoy creating music from it - often independently or in smaller bands. How can that happen with more people in development - maybe making developer experience more joyful is the way to go. I'm not against specialization - but specialization can be done at a small community level too.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-07-03 16:44:56+00:00
Software is a very different beast though because this crappy technical debt lives on, it often grows "tentacles" with poorly defined boundaries, people and companies come to depend on it, and then the mess must eventually be cleaned up.

Take your photos example. Sure, the number of photos taken has exploded, but who cares if there are now reams and reams of crappy vacation photos - it's not like anyone is really forced to look at it.

With AI-generated code, I think it's actually awesome for small, individual projects. And in capable hands, they can be a fantastic productivity enhancer in the enterprise. But my heart bleeds for the poor sap who is going to eventually have to debug and clean up the mountains of AI code being checked in by folks with a few months/years of experience.
by ElevenLathe | 2025-07-03 16:44:58+00:00
Even this is stretching it. It's not as though the Andrew Jackson administration was doing deportations (besides the Trail of Tears, which was euphemistically referred to as a deportation campaign). The practice of criminalizing immigration enforcement didn't coincide with any amendment to the Constitution, which is itself only nominally even part of U.S. law anymore.
by aravenel | 2025-07-03 16:45:03+00:00
NVIDIA RAPIDS | http://rapids.ai | DevOps Manager | Full-time | Remote (US preferred)

We are hiring a DevOps manager to lead NVIDIA’s Data Science Engineering Operations team, supporting multiple engineering teams working on data science (and adjacent) libraries such as RAPIDS, NeMo Retriever, and NeMo Curator. You will work closely with our development and build teams to ensure high-quality releases of CUDA/C++ and Python libraries as well as containers.

More details and application are here: https://wd5.myworkday.com/nvidia/d/inst/15$392530/9925$16687...
by immibis | 2025-07-03 16:45:28+00:00
Why should the government do exactly the things that benefit society, benefit you, and don't benefit Debbie, but not the things that benefit society, benefit Debbie and don't benefit you? This is just disguised selfishness.

I'm not deep enough in the theory to know whether "voluntary transactions create a Pareto-optimal outcome" is a true statement. I suspect not, because of information asymmetry and so on.

Pareto-optimal is also kind of an arbitrary stopping point - you chose it because it supports your argument, not because it's actually a good one. If it was possible to make everyone 1000 times richer (in physical resources) but at the cost of making Elon Musk just another average person, that wouldn't be a Pareto move because it would decrease Elon's status, but it would still be extremely good. Why shouldn't we aim for that?
by xmgplays | 2025-07-03 16:45:29+00:00
The difficulty of exporting them is kinda the point(sorta). The benefit of passkeys is that the average user is less likely to hand them over to a scammer, because they literally can't/don't know how, whereas everyone and their mother knows how to give a scammer their password/username and the funky numbers in the email they just got.
by Retr0id | 2025-07-03 16:45:30+00:00
So what's the overall hashrate with this approach?

I'll try to calculate it from the information given. 12 parallel instances at a clock speed of 62.5MHz, with 68 clock cycles per hash.

62.5MHz * 12 / 68 = ~11MH/s

That seems... slow? Did I do the math right? How big of an FPGA do you need before this would compete with a GPU, and how much would it cost?

For reference, an RTX 4090 can do 21975.5 MH/s according to hashcat benchmarks.
by 93po | 2025-07-03 16:46:19+00:00
I agree that's both the historical basis and continued reality of what policing is in the US (and also probably elsewhere). It's interesting to see how quickly and ravenously cops respond to businesses calling in reports, and crimes associated to the wealthy and powerful. Meanwhile someone can call the cops about their neighbor beating a spouse and they'll never show up and seem annoyed when they want to make a report.
by samingrassia | 2025-07-03 16:46:37+00:00
BudgetSimple is a no-code site builder for personal finance coaches, creators and advisors. We’re looking for a fullstack engineer to help grow the platform.

You’ll work directly with the founder using React, Python (Flask), and Postgres. Ideal if you’ve built fullstack apps and enjoy clean, simple products. Experience with SaaS, no-code tools, or Stripe is a bonus.

Email sam [at] budgetsimple [dot] com with a quick intro and something you’ve built.

Thanks!
by motorest | 2025-07-03 16:46:50+00:00
> You only ever need interface inheritance for code reuse.

Not really. Interfaces play no role in invoking member functions, even if they are defined in a base class. Inheritance is used to allow member functions declared in a parent class to be called in a member functions without requiring boilerplate code. Instead of having to duplicate code, inheritance provides a concise way to specify a) this is what I want to reuse, b) this little thing is what I want to change in the implementation.

> The genuine value proposition for implementation inheritance is, quite unsurprisingly, the same as for typestate and generic typestate, namely better type checking within a single self-contained program module.

No. The value proposition is not requiring any boilerplate code to extend or change any detail in a base class. With inheritance, you just declare the thing you want to add or change, and you do not need to touch anything else. The alternatives being floated fail to meet very basic requirements such as visibility, encapsulation, and access control.

> Implementation inheritance "in the large" remains a total misfeature and should not be used (...)

Not true. This is a personal belief based on specious reasoning. You need to go way out of your way to ignore the problems that inheritance solved while ignoring the negative impact of the alternatives being floated.
by pamelafox | 2025-07-03 16:46:51+00:00
Fantastic FAQ, thank you Hamel for writing it up. We had an open space on AI Evals at Pycon this year, and had lots of discussion around similar questions. I only wrote down the questions, however:

# Evaluation Metrics & Methodology

* What metrics do you use (e.g., BERTScore, ROUGE, F1)? Are similarity metrics still useful?

* Do you use step-by-step evaluations or evaluate full responses?

* How do you evaluate VLM (vision-language model) summarization? Do you sample outputs or extract named entities?

* How do you approach offline (ground truth) vs. online evaluation?

* How do you handle uncertainty or "don’t know" cases? (Temperature settings?)

* How do you evaluate multi-turn conversations?

* A/B comparisons and discrete labels (e.g., good/bad) are easier to interpret.

* It’s important to counteract bias toward your own favorite eval questions—ensure a diverse dataset.

## Prompting & Models

* Do you modify prompts based on the specific app being evaluated?

* Where do you store prompts—text files, Prompty, database, or in code?

* Do you have domain experts edit or review prompts?

* How do you choose which model to use?

## Evaluation Infrastructure

* How do you choose an evaluation framework?

* What platforms do you use to gather domain expert feedback or labels?

* Do domain experts label outputs or also help with prompt design?

## User Feedback & Observability

* Do you collect thumbs up / thumbs down feedback?

* How does observability help identify failure modes?

* Do models tend to favor their own outputs? (There's research on this.)

I personally work on adding evaluation to our most popular Azure RAG samples, and put a Textual CLI interface in this repo that I've found helpful for reviewing the eval results: https://github.com/Azure-Samples/ai-rag-chat-evaluator
by jasonthorsness | 2025-07-03 16:47:08+00:00
I really hope we can avoid metered stuff for the long-term. One of the best aspects of software development is the low capital barrier to entry, and the cost of the AI tools right now is threatening that.

I'm fortunate in that my own use of the AI tools I'm personally paying for is squished into my off-time on nights and weekends, so I get buy with a $20/month Claude subscription :).
by vunderba | 2025-07-03 16:47:32+00:00
> The job then becomes identifying those problems and figuring out how to configure a sandbox for them, what tools to provide, and how to define the success criteria for the model.

Your test case seems like a quintessential example where you're missing that last step.

Since it is unlikely that you understand the math behind fractals or x86 assembly (apologies if I'm wrong on this), your only means for verifying the accuracy of your solution is a superficial visual inspection, e.g. "Does it look like the Mandelbrot series?"

Ideally, your evaluation criteria would be expressed as a continuous function, but at the very least, it should take the form of a sufficiently diverse quantifiable set of discrete inputs and their expected outputs.
by empath75 | 2025-07-03 16:48:13+00:00
The problem with AI NPCs is actually not strictly a context problem and cannot be fixed with prompt engineering or RAG, because the LLM knows a _vast_ amount of stuff outside of the context you feed it.

No matter how you tell it how to roleplay or how many instructions you give it or don't give it, there is always the problem that you can ask it to write a front end app in JS for you and it will. Or ask it about the theory of relativity or anything else that the AI is capable of conversing about but the character would not be. It is trivially easy to jailbreak out of fictional personas.
by phendrenad2 | 2025-07-03 16:48:25+00:00
No offense to you in particular, but HN makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or on the Truman Show sometimes. If I had a dream where someone replied to my analysis of the law here with "if you read this section of the law it says X" and then provided a link, and I already KNEW that what they were saying was untrue, because I posted that link a month ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44202153), but I clicked it anyway, only to find that they had mixed-up separate parts of that law and paraphrased them badly, I'd wake up and think "wow I need to touch grass". But yet, here it is happening in front of my eyes.
by PaulHoule | 2025-07-03 16:48:58+00:00
For my baby Bernal sphere it is shipped either as LN2 or NH4. The large airspace needs a lot of it compared to the water inventory. O’Neill’s published designs except for the Stanford torus were much worse.

The water inventory of both N2 and H2O on Earth (0.2 cubic km of water per inhabitant) is extravagant. Ceres is roughly 50% water (like the generic outer solar system or interstellar object) and we could use all of it but it adds up to about the mass of our oceans, and that is most of the water inventory the asteroid belt.

I’ve looked at various large rotating structures up to the size of the Banks Orbital and concluded you could solve the structural problems if you could make a reliable journal bearing (structural parts don’t need to be spun) that could handle the velocity difference but no matter what you cannot afford tall mountains or deep oceans.
by RcouF1uZ4gsC | 2025-07-03 16:49:01+00:00
The reason that D did not replace C++, IMO is garbage collection.

D was so far ahead of C++98 that it wasn't funny, but garbage collection kept it from being able to be used in the same niche.

D has gotten less dependent on garbage collection but

C++11 (and then 17, 20, 26 (reflection)) have closed the gap enough that it is not the quantum leap that it once was.
by marcosdumay | 2025-07-03 16:49:03+00:00
The developed countries were mostly capitalistic up until the 70s. It just only started to die at the 80s, and it's still going strong on a few countries.

If you mean that a socialist structure was created on the 30s, yes, it was. But it didn't kill capitalism. Relentless corruption and cronyism is what killed it, the socialism in fact depends on it to work.
by pramodbiligiri | 2025-07-03 16:49:56+00:00
Wouldn't the sweet spot for MCP be where the LLM is able to do most of the heavy lifting on its own (outputting some kind of structured or unstructured output), but needs a bit of external/dynamic data that it can't do without? The list of MCP servers/tools it can use should nail that external lookup in a (mostly) deterministic way.

This would work best if a human is the end consumer of this output, or will receive manual vetting eventually. I'm not sure I'd leave such a system running unsupervised in production ("the Automation at Scale" part mentioned by the OP).
by hellojesus | 2025-07-03 16:50:34+00:00
The libertarian bent typically suggests that the government must be funded to the extent that it can protect private property. This means it must be able to recognize private property and litigate against its theft, including bodily harm. Therefore I shout from my safe stable, but my prerequisite is that the government exists to provide that safe stable.

It also exists to provide public goods, which are defined as nonrivalous and nonexcludable, such as national defense (where I would only suggest it be provided insofar as the workforce be entirely voluntary).

Redistributibe policies such as PFML or universal healthcare, are indeed theft. You take from Person A to give to Person B when Person A would otherwise not do so. Please help me understand how that is not theft?