MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by flashgordon | 2025-07-31 13:41:40+00:00
This is really nice. I've been doing this for quite a while (and also ping pong ic-em and back). Oh and I've also been "the" poor performer. A couple of observations:

1. Performance management is never easy and I don't think it should be. I don't mean the technique or process of it bit the mental weighing of it. You are affecting a person's livelihood so you don't want to approach it robotically always (despite what the hr training tells you about it not being personal etc)

2. This is a big one. Performance has a huge under rated aspect that is environmental and circumstantial. I've seen really strong performers drop and fail because of personal situations and not being able (or rather not given the space and bandwidth to recover organically). And similarly those with a poor perf in one company go to a supposedly "higher tier" company and really thrive and sky rocket.

Management is really a mixed bag. I loved the coaching, direction setting, strategy, etc but always having to sell opaque higher up decisions as your own and being an inverted $hit umbrella for leadership can be draining. I guess the solution is to just join executive leadership ha.
by WhyNotHugo | 2025-07-31 13:42:02+00:00
> I can see a future where I’m cut off from parts of the web because of captchas.

I’ve seen this in past and present. Google’s “click on all the bicycles” one is notoriously hard, and I’ve had situations where I just gave up after a few dozen screens.

Chinese captchas are the worst on this sense, but they’re unusual and clearly pick up details which are invisible to me. I’ve sometimes failed the same captcha a dozen times and then saw a Chinese person complete the next one successfully on a single attempt, on the same browser session. I don’t now if they measure mouse movement speed, precision, or what, but it’s clearly something that varies per person.
by Karawebnetwork | 2025-07-31 13:42:16+00:00
From my experience and memory of that era, early versions of PHP had a very low barrier to entry and very simple and insecure methods for accessing a database. It was easy to program the CRUD logic of a website without knowing much about the rest of the pipeline, such as security or data cleansing.

This was also the era of jQuery with easy to use AJAX methods, which enabled almost anyone to create a front-end that calls backend code.

All of that was simple code that was easy to share with others on forums. This led to insecure websites where, to exaggerate slightly, every input field could be used for SQL injection attacks.

To be fair with PHP of that era, it was possible to create secure websites with it. It's that the ease of use created the illusion that once the website worked, you didn't have to tackle any other portions of development process such as quality control or security.

It was a glorious era.
by HumblyTossed | 2025-07-31 13:43:29+00:00
> It's because women frankly have better options than motherhood and what stay at home parenting entails.

It's not about having better options so much as knowing that they'll be bringing a child into a world that's only going to get worse. A child who may never own a home, who may struggle to make ends meet. A child who may go bankrupt if they lose the healthcare lotto.
by Aurornis | 2025-07-31 13:43:44+00:00
> you have to find how each person behaves. Lots of talk, influence, repeating the same thing every day, etc.

It doesn’t help that most of the management advice you find on the internet assumes that inside every employee is a happy, productive worker and their manager can unlock it with the right words.

In the real world the range of employee types is very large. Some of them are just toxic and you’re not going to coach it out of them. Knowing when and how to cut your losses is important for preserving the rest of the team.
by TheChaplain | 2025-07-31 13:44:34+00:00
One-sided text that don't nearly speak the whole truth.

It fails to take into account that as a manager you may very will end up with employees that are toxic, disrespectful, cheating, lazy, incompetent, intolerant, unmanageable...

And contrary to popular belief, that it is not always the managers fault.

I had a close relative become a manager, tried their utmost for a year but gave up. It was not worth the sleepless nights, stress, therapy and sitting in the parking lot crying their eyes out after work.
by pxeger1 | 2025-07-31 13:44:42+00:00
I succeeded with opening an issue and getting something to be supported in browsers (although I think it's not yet in the standard). It was a very small and fairly uncontraversial tweak which was easy to specify, implement, and test, though - bigger things are probably harder.

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6203
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-07-31 13:44:54+00:00
In another comment you shared a avenge bus driver salary as 44k/year. So by your statement, your friends would earn 4x that, meaning 176k/year while you said you earn 6x that at 264k/year.

Sorry, but something is wrong here. Either you're data/math is wrong, or you and your friends work in the top 1% FAANGs/big-tech jobs, because those tech salaries aren't the norm in Europe.
by atmavatar | 2025-07-31 13:45:00+00:00
I may not agree with her politics, but from what I can tell, AOC is intelligent, articulate, more than willing to inform herself about an issue before voting on or having a hearing about it, and most importantly, she appears to genuinely wish to represent her constituents to the best of her ability.

I would happily clear and re-populate both parties with candidates sharing those traits.

MTG, on the other hand, is and always has been an internet troll, and not even a high-quality troll - merely a ball of ignorance and bigotry that comes a dime a dozen in any competitive online game lobby or forum.
by stego-tech | 2025-07-31 13:45:26+00:00
That’s The Atlantic for you: raising a decent point in the headline, and then squandering the article whining like a toddler who didn’t get candy at the checkout lane.

Taking the headline at face value, though, they’re not wrong at all, and this is something I’ve tried warning folks over myself for several years now. Our collective response to COVID was truly the alarm bells going off (vaccine conspiracies, anti-masking, denialism, etc), and now we’re seeing an anti-science (and anti-reality) administration celebrate the gutting of our scientific prestige in the name of nostalgia for -isms. While authors and commentators are handwringing over whether the US is “cooked” scientifically, those in the know or who are observant already know the answer is an emphatic YES.

With the present attack on science, we’ve effectively outsourced one of the last remaining industries that kept us afloat as an empire. We have no real manufacturing (at least of anything others want), and what we do make is of decreasing quality so that shareholders can get paid (e.g. Boeing jets, American cars, and now even SIG handguns - if we can’t make decent planes, cars, and guns, then what do we even export besides raw materials/agriculture?). Without science driving R&D, we won’t even have the patents on innovative new medicines, technologies, or energy sources that we can export abroad.

So yeah. We’re done as an Empire. This isn’t something we can roll back next election, and I don’t think the current crop of Americans have felt enough pain to suddenly grow cooperative and engage in self-sacrifice for the greater good.
by danabramov | 2025-07-31 13:45:31+00:00
Yeah Lean is actually pretty interesting in that sense because it’s designed to have a small kernel that actually does the type theory checking, and that kernel has a specification, tests, and independent reimplementations. The kernel really is very small compared to the entirety of Lean syntax and behavior — everything else runs and is elaborated before stuff feeds into the kernel. So the surface area for actual proof checking bugs is greatly reduced.
by therealpygon | 2025-07-31 13:45:38+00:00
Personally, I absolutely use it locally. I’m always trying different editors and tech. It saves me from entering a multitude of API keys into each different software, in addition to the other reasons supplied for being able to specify your own limits and avoid surprise charges if you want.

When I want to try a new editor, vs code plugin or software, I only have to point it at my litellm proxy and immediately have access to all of my providers and models I’ve configured, no extra setup. It’s like a locally hosted openrouter that doesn’t charge you for routing. I can just select a different provider as easy as choosing the model in the software; switching from “openai/gpt-4o” to “groq/moonshotai/kimi-k2-instruct”, for example.

You can use litellm or OpenAI protocols which makes it compatible with most software. Add on ollama proxy and you can proxy ollama requests from software that doesn’t support specifying OpenAI’s base address but that does support ollama (a not uncommon situation). That combo covers most software.

So yes, to me it is absolutely worth running locally and as easy as editing a config file and starting a docker (or a shell script to open a venv and start litellm, if you prefer).

The only drawbacks I’ve found so far is that not all providers accurately respond with their model information so you sometimes have to configure models/pricing/limits manually in the config (about 5 lines of text that be copy/pasted and edited). All the SOTA models are pre-configured and kept relatively up to date, but one can expect updates to lag behind real pricing changes.

The UI is necessary if you want to set up api key/billing restrictions which requires a db, but that is rather trivial with docker as well.
by hazmazlaz | 2025-07-31 13:46:36+00:00
The need to start a chat for a model that is not currently downloaded in order to initiate a download confused me for a minute the first time I tried it out. A more intuitive approach (which is the first thing I tried to do before I figured it out) might be to make the download icons in the model list clickable, to initiate a download. Then you could display a download progress bar in the list, and when models have been downloaded show a little "info" icon that is also clickable to display the model card, surface other model specific options, and enable deletion. Love the new UI, kudos!
by AberrantJ | 2025-07-31 13:46:47+00:00
Here's three comments, two were written by a human and one written by a bot - can you tell which were human and which were a bot?

Didn’t realize plexiglass existed in the 1930s!

I'm certainly not a monetization expert. But don't most consumers recoil in horror at subscriptions? At least enough to offset the idea they can be used for everything?

Not sure why this isn’t getting more attention - super helpful and way better than I expected!
by lotsofpulp | 2025-07-31 13:46:49+00:00
This is news to me. Are you saying you can borrow money with the stated intention to speculate on future sale price, from the government no less?

I have no experience with farmland, but for other purposes such as building hotels/retail/etc, you can't just get a loan for the land, you buy the land with cash and then get a construction loan to start development. I assumed you would have to at least need to have a plan to operate a farm to get a loan.
When/how will Google Chrome respond to Comet?
by moltenice | 2025-07-31 13:47:32+00:00
I have been thinking hard on this since the last couple of days. I think they should respond in the next 60-70 days (but thats slow in AI war).

I even ran an AI debate to figure out what are my blind spots to this.

1. Its not a flip switch for them due to the huge userbase. (big change in UX)

2. Wait for the feature set to mature then pick the important ones and hammer the market.

But if they don't react in the next couple of months - they will start seeing their userbase drop.
by alphazard | 2025-07-31 13:47:38+00:00
In today's corporate world, it can be difficult or impossible to fire people. It's important to understand that actually removing someone from the organization is a totally separate problem from managing the performance of the team.

People who don't contribute or cause problems need to be sequestered as much as possible. Don't let them bring down the rest of the team. I think "managed out" is the term that's being used now. That is a skill that a manager of any level can use to keep their team performing even when they don't have the authority to remove someone, or the process to remove someone is many months long.
by RamblingCTO | 2025-07-31 13:47:43+00:00
I really don't get it. It's against the German constitution and yet there are still politicians pushing for that, again and again. We should make it mandatory that when something is clearly against the constitution you loose your job as a politician. It won't work anyway. It's the same spiel wasting so much money and time. Do we know which lobby group/party is pushing for that yet again?
by lurk2 | 2025-07-31 13:48:01+00:00
A millionaire approaches an attractive young woman in a bar and asks if she would be willing to spend the weekend with him at the country’s most expensive and luxurious hotel, waited on hand and foot and receiving a million pounds to sleep with him. The girl considers that it’s worth it for a million pounds, and agrees. The millionaire then suggests that they immediately sneak into the men’s toilet for quick sex for £5. She is shocked and insulted, and says “That’s disgusting! What kind of girl do you think I am?” He replies “We’ve already decided that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
by 71bw | 2025-07-31 13:48:29+00:00
Meanwhile on my publicly available Oracle VPS...

22307 admin 19668 user 15396 ubuntu 7038 user2 6954 test 6375 debian 3938 ftpuser 3433 postgres 3416 oracle 3076 deploy 3003 steam 2917 user1 2830 dev 2570 test1 2352 es 2187 server 1957 hadoop 1680 alex 1676 guest 1517 testuser 1494 sammy 1392 mysql 1228 minecraft 1218 pi 1184 support 1148 sysadmin 1140 ubnt 1120 from 1090 123456 1035 test2
by falcor84 | 2025-07-31 13:48:31+00:00
As far as I understand, Turing himself did not specify a duration, but here's an example paper that ran a randomized study on (the old) GPT 4 with a 5 minute duration, and the AI passed with flying colors - https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08007

From my experience, AI has significantly improved since, and I expect that ChatGPT o3 or Claude 4 Opus would pass a 30 minute test.
by sumtechguy | 2025-07-31 13:48:42+00:00
yep exactly that. I had that exact issue. Junk coming in from a tcp/ppp connection then had to unpack it. Tons of garbage moves and byte offsetting and then making sure you keep the endianness correct too. On the platform I was using luckily memcpy could do most of what I needed. Not the best way to do it but the wildly out of date branch of gcc could do it. Got pretty good at picking junk out of random streams shifting and and/or whatever was needed. Totally useless skill for what I work on these days.
by JohnFen | 2025-07-31 13:49:05+00:00
> "current LLMs basically pass the Turing test" makes me feel like I've secretly been given much worse versions of all the LLMs in some kind of study.

I think you may think passing the Turing test is more difficult and meaningful than it is. Computers have been able to pass the Turing test for longer than genAI has been around. Even Turing thought it wasn't a useful test in reality. He meant it as a thought experiment.
by x187463 | 2025-07-31 13:49:06+00:00
Per the wiki article for Turing Test:

> In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine's ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human.

Based on this, I would agree with the OP in many contexts. So, yeah, 'basically', is a load bearing word here but seems reasonably correct in the context of distinguishing human vs bot in any scalable and automated way.
by fifticon | 2025-07-31 13:49:31+00:00
I wonder what dr detroit did wrong to be bombed into oblivion; he is not fully wrong. As an example, the HCA story 'tinderbox' is clearly built from earlier borrowed cloth. As a dane myself, it is apparent that HCA didn't even have a danish term for the demon dogs, so he just calls them 'dogs' to avoid issues with his audience.
by m8rl | 2025-07-31 13:49:53+00:00
There are different type of leads, not only people managers. There are architects, chief-of-somethings, designers, people who give all their imagination, creativity and experience into leading teams and companies to achieve great things. Clearly that's empowering, and empowering is crucial: Preparing the ground and conditions for people to do their job as good as possible. But it's a lot more, and it's fun and you get feedback and reward.

Let's not get dragged down by this stories how pathetic the reality of leadership roles has to be, this all depends on the leadership structure and culture.
by i_am_proteus | 2025-07-31 13:49:58+00:00
Another fine text on this subject I can recommend (at a somewhat higher level, and not provided for free) is The Computer Music Tutorial:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262044912/the-computer-music-tu...

I suggest having some kind of sequencer and synthesizers (one subtractive, one FM) available to play with while reading. Free VSTs in the free Reaper DAW are a fine starting point.
by krona | 2025-07-31 13:50:03+00:00
Thank you for writing a clear explanation of how false positive rates determine your minimum change threshold. I've found it surprisingly difficult to explain this to developers/QA's without a basic statistical background.

What makes the situation worse, which you didn't mention, is that developers like to write a suite of benchmarks, each of which can result in a false positive regression. So even if the FP rate of an individual benchmark is <1%, you can easily end up at 10% FP rate if your suite is large enough.
by Terretta | 2025-07-31 13:50:14+00:00
If you spell “sit in the tub” s-o-a-k soak, and you spell “a funny story” j-o-k-e joke, how do you spell “the white of an egg”?

Context engineering* has been around longer than we think. It works on humans too.

The cats are just adversarial context priming, same as this riddle.

* I've called it "context priming" for a couple years for reasons showed by this child's riddle, while considering "context engineering" as iteratively determining what priming unspools robust resilient results for the question.
by throwawayhumus | 2025-07-31 13:50:52+00:00
Or perhaps they have matured and understand that the current war in Gaza was caused by Hamas' actual crime against humanity on October 7th and their continued strategy to cause bloodshed.

If you remove Hamas there is not longer any justification for the war and Israel would have to stop, Us support would evaporate, too. This would be the best way to protect civilians on all sides and to push for longer term negotiations.

There is a big difference between supporting Palestinians and supporting Hamas, which seems to be lost on many.

In fact, it is a big mistake for France and the UK to recognise a Palestinian state without conditions as it in effect vindicates Hamas and so can only create move violence.
by jeffhuys | 2025-07-31 13:51:19+00:00
If you have any tips, feel free to enlighten me. Even though I'm "only" in my 30s I feel the future is uncertain - the original author of this post made one other post that was also clearly vibe-coded, but not many comments seem to point it out. It'll only get worse from here, depending how you look at it of course; hackers will have a WAY easier time as time goes on.
by lapcat | 2025-07-31 13:51:21+00:00
Nobody is running for Congress to pay for college tuition. That would be the stupidest, most improbable investment plan in the world.

The reason that legislators don't rock the boat is that they're paid by their wealthy campaign contributors to not rock the boat. But the reality is usually not honest candidates getting corrupted; rather, the wealthy campaign donors specifically select candidates who are naturally amenable to their interests, and give them boatloads of money (and needless to say, would stop giving them boatloads if they failed to do what the contributors wanted). It's a trade of money for political power, between willing parties. The political system, as it is, attracts and benefits those who are already corrupt or corruptible.

Increasingly, members of Congress are already wealthy even before taking office, so they never had any fear of paying for college. Stock trading itself is largely a luxury of the wealthy. Even those people of lesser means who do own stock typically don't trade it directly but have it managed for them by a pension or retirement fund.
by ta1243 | 2025-07-31 13:51:26+00:00
> Budget. Getting some for your team or at least for your priorities. Protecting what you get. Capex vs Opex.

Always spend your budget, ideally about 5-10% over (find out what others do)

If you don't, next year you get less. You can't save 20k this year and spend it next year. You can't even save 20k and get rewarded for being cost efficient as you'll be punished with a lower budget next year.

Yes it's stupid.
by FinnLobsien | 2025-07-31 13:51:31+00:00
I don't necessarily think the problem is not forgetting about consequences. It's more about the confluence of rules.

I remember playing a game where one card you drew let you ban a word for the duration of the game. If you said that word, you'd lose points in the game.

In the beginning, it leads to funny moments. But as more and more (at least somewhat common) words get banned, people just stop talking altogether and communicate the minimum because everything becomes a minefield.

It's obviously a flawed analogy, but I think the overall point holds:

Even if the rules are merely arbitrary and have no real effect whatsoever (such as banning a word for the next 15 minutes), the rules don't just get rid of the words but keep up overall conversation, they eventually kill the conversation itself.

The same goes for regulation. Even if zoning laws, environmental reviews, vendor evaluations and design specifications and community surveys are all individually useful, their confluence creates a knot that makes it impossible to build 8 EV chargers.
by hobs | 2025-07-31 13:52:52+00:00
It's just not though. People above you are making decisions to not pay what generally amounts to trivial amounts of money to (in many cases I have seen) completely fuck up their products.

I have worked with enough C levels to understand that most of them just want you to manage all the problems while they collect the money and make "strategic decisions" (follow whatever fad is hot right now.)

It's why I like working with smaller companies, usually not established enough to just make middle management eat shit and ignore customers.
by valyala | 2025-07-31 13:53:02+00:00
Lock-free data structures and algorithms access shared memory via various atomic operations such as compare-and-swap and atomic arithmetic. The throughout of these operations do not scale with the number of CPU cores. Contrary, the throughput usually reduces with the growing number of CPU cores because they need more time for synchronizing local per-CPU caches with the main memory. So, lock-free data structures and algorithms do not scale on systems with big number of CPU cores. It is preferred to use "shared nothing" data structures and algorithms instead, where every CPU core processes its own portion of state, which isn't shared among other CPU cores. In this case the local state can be processed from local per-CPU caches at the speed which exceeds the main memory read/write bandwidth and has smaller access latency.