MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lukeschlather | 2025-07-03 19:07:03+00:00
> These devs don't get any value whatsoever from LLM, because explaining it to the LLM takes longer then doing it themselves.

I feel like people are maybe underestimating the value of LLMs for some tasks. There's a lot of stuff where, I know how to do it but I can't remember the parameter order or the exact method name and the LLM absolutely knows. And I really get nothing out of trying to remember/look up the exact way to do something. Even when I do know, it often doesn't hurt to be like "can you give me a loop to replace all the occurrences of foo with bar in this array of strings" and I don't need to remember if it's string.replace(foo,bar), whether I need to use double or single quotes, if it's actually sub or gsub or whatever.

There's lots of tiny sub-problems that are totally inconsequential and an LLM can do for me, and I don't think I lose anything here. In fact maybe I take a little longer, I chat with the LLM about idioms a bit and my code ends up more idiomatic/more maintainable.

It kind of calls to mind something Steve Jobs said about how hotkeys are actually worse than using a mouse, and that keyboard users aren't faster, they just think they are. But using LLMs for these sorts of things feels similar in that, like using keyboard shortcuts, maybe it takes longer, but I can use muscle memory so I don't have to break flow, and I can focus on something else.

Asking the LLM for these sorts of trivial problems means I don't have to break flow, I can stay focused on the high-level problem.
by Joker_vD | 2025-07-03 19:07:46+00:00
There is also an important (but often overlooked) detail that you/your application may not be the only user of the cache. At which point caching, indeed, is an optimization via abstraction: when you fetch an X, you are in no position to predict that the next fifty completely unrelated to you requests would also want to fetch the same X, so it should probably be cached to be readily served.

Which is why solving the "I want my data in fast storage as often as possible" problem may be counter-productive on the whole: you ain't the only client of the system; let it breath and server requests from others.
by thrance | 2025-07-03 19:08:04+00:00
Hiding huge amounts of money in tax havens is actively detrimental to the economy. I believe the goal of any economy should be to better our lives, not hoard wealth and sit on it.

Without taxation, the infrastructures needed to maintain a healthy economy are unsustainable. We need to ensure that what companies benefit from public services is taken back so it can be reinvested.
by mindslight | 2025-07-03 19:08:12+00:00
> I don't mind turning back the Keynesian dials and abolishing the federal reserve. The reason my discussion is focused on PFML and universal healthcare is because that was the topic of the OP to which I replied at the root of my comment chain.

The point is that without actually doing the former, your point in isolation on the latter comes across as completely out of touch. Currently, the vast majority of people simply do not have the kind of wealth required to make a decision like you're advocating. As it stands, the financial treadmill is a fixed quantity - so in that context, what you're effectively advocating is for people to not have the time to have kids, period.

> Those two are also not current or longstanding federal policy, which should making their prevention far easier than their repeal.

Yes, that is exactly the problem! When you push everywhere with a justification of individual freedom, the places you tend to actually move forward are where you're actually serving an agenda of entrenched centralized power. For example, look at this individual-liberty-appealing "fiscal responsibility" refrain of the past 30 years - it ended up facilitating all that newly-printed money to be given away to banks / asset holders, rather than say purposefully spent making sure our industrial base wasn't getting completely hollowed out. It was basically a kayfabe for looting, and not supporting individual freedom at all.

In a perfect world I would have preferred if that new money hadn't been created in the first place, and that wealth had remained distributed throughout society rather than centrally collected and then centrally assigned. But that wasn't anywhere close to being on the table. So we have to be real about the actual results of the specific policies we're advocating for, lest we become patsies helping to destroy individual liberty.
by shitpostbot | 2025-07-03 19:08:13+00:00
It's far more reasonable to assume it moves infinitely fast between peasants, but comes to a halt at each one.

Or if not infinitely fast, but we're going to assume a chain could accelerate it indefinitely, than it's still more reasonable to assume each pass happens exactly how fast it needs to for 6s/num_peasants, comes to a halt, and then moves to the next. That way all the peasants have the same, minimum, speed, Instead of some slow, other absurdly fast based on an arbitrarily assumed, linear, acceleration.

(Why not assume exponential acceleration and say after 10 passe s it hits light speed)
by JadeNB | 2025-07-03 19:08:24+00:00
> Because time is finite and you probably set out to achieve something else which is now on hold. Nothing wrong with distractions but let's not glorify them :).

That's true, but it was also true before. To the extent that solving a problem to learn the details of solving it was ever worthwhile, which I think is and was quite a lot, I'd say it's still true now, even though there are lots of almost-but-not-quite solutions out there. That doesn't mean that you should solve all problems on your own, but I think you also shouldn't always use someone else's solution.
by jjani | 2025-07-03 19:08:29+00:00
> In a move that at first went unnoticed

Stopped reading here, if you're positioning yourself as if you have some kind of unique insight when there is none in order to boost youe credentials and sell your product there's little chance you have anything actually insightful to offer. Might sound like an overreaction/nitpicking but it's entirely needless LinkedIn style "thought leader" nonsense.

In reality it was immediately noticed by anyone using these models, have a look at the HN threads at the time, or even on Reddit, let alone the actual spaces dedicated to AI builders.
by phillipseamore | 2025-07-03 19:08:48+00:00
For now as it also requires modifications to how WAL is handled. In another article they mention that they want to upstream those. The Percona version is exactly the same except for:

- Storage Manager (SMGR) API Exposure: Allows PostgreSQL extensions to integrate custom storage managers. This change was inspired by the patchset introduced to the community.

- WAL Read/Write API Exposure to hook into WAL read and write functions.
by vel0city | 2025-07-03 19:08:53+00:00
That you phrase it as a "vacation" and can't seem to put a dollar value on it but obviously less than a couple hundred dollars a week really points to the idea you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't think anyone thinks 12 weeks with a newborn is a vacation, and yet most people probably wouldn't trade that 12 weeks with their newborn for anything in the world.

> I'm not ignoring this cost

You literally are ignoring the cost, as its not your given model. And its not a cost that will only be borne by the immediate caregivers, there are knock-on costs throughout society that will be felt by this change.
by nickjj | 2025-07-03 19:09:22+00:00
> Respectfully, you're using it wrong, and you get what you paid for.

I used the paid (free trial) version of Cursor to look at Go code. I used the free version of ChatGPT for topics like Rails, Flask, Python, Ansible and various networking things. These are all popular techs. I wouldn't describe either platform as "good" if we're measuring good by going from an idea to a fully working solution with reasonable code.

Cursor did a poor job. The code it provided was mega over engineered to the point where most of the code had to be thrown away because it missed the big picture. This was after a lot of very specific prompting and iterations. The code it provided also straight up didn't work without a lot of manual intervention.

It also started to modify app code to get tests to pass when in reality the test code was the thing that was broken.

Also it kept forgetting things from 10 minutes ago and repeating the same mistakes. For example when 3 of its solutions didn't work, it started to go back and suggest using the first solution that was confirmed to not work (and it even output text explaining why it didn't work just before).

I feel really bad for anyone trusting AI to write code when you don't already have a lot of experience so you can keep it in check.

So far at best I barely find it helpful for learning the basics of something new or picking out some obscure syntax of a tool you don't well after giving it a link to the tool's docs and source code.
by coldpie | 2025-07-03 19:09:58+00:00
Yeah I'm also interested in some of the details here, but the linked library repo is a bit too low-level for my current understanding.

For example, in the usecase of providing a proof-of-age to a website: who provides the verification data (the government?); what form does that take (a file in a standard format?); who holds/owns the verification data (the user?); who runs the verification software (the end-user's web browser?).

Can the user use any implementation to provide the proof, or must it be a "blessed" implementation such as Google Wallet?
by taylodl | 2025-07-03 19:10:40+00:00
This article is extremely short-sighted. History shows us that government investment in research can yield transformative results. Take Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: its robust public funding of science laid the groundwork for revolutionary breakthroughs in physics - Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - arguably two of humanity’s greatest intellectual achievements. These discoveries didn’t just advance knowledge: they powered the technological revolutions of the 20th century.

The only reason the U.S. emerged as the dominant global power instead of Germany was not due to a lack of scientific prowess on Germany’s part, but because of catastrophic political leadership. Germany failed to constrain Hitler’s worst instincts, just as the U.S. today risks failing to constrain Trump’s. But had Germany succeeded politically, we’d be having a very different conversation about the benefits of state-sponsored research.

To dismiss federal research funding as wasteful is to ignore the very foundation of modern innovation. The internet, GPS, and countless medical advances all trace back to government-backed research. Undermining that legacy is not just shortsighted - it’s deceitful.
by sandworm101 | 2025-07-03 19:10:56+00:00
>> lack of any Egyptian archeologists on most interesting and significant findings about Ancient Egypt is one.

Politics. The egyption government is very sensitive about egyptology. They can make normal life difficult for people who rock the boat. Novel research or theories are activley discouraged. So it is hard for locals, and safer for outsiders, to make news.

https://youtube.com/@historyforgranite

(No, this isnt an ancient aliens crackpot channel. This guy is doing solid work and does discuss how egyptology is so locked down.)
by sam_goody | 2025-07-03 19:11:28+00:00
I assume that they have naming rights. ShipGoo001 is somewhat playful, but even better would be something like "ICan'tBelieveIt'sNotTar!",

[and once I am daydreaming, Let's have the leading I as a roman numeral - CIIXVICan'tBelieve...]

And, preemptively: 1. People have started "not-a-fork"ing git repos, a la LumoSQL. 2. Fedora purposely uses special characters in their release names.
by randomNumber7 | 2025-07-03 19:13:27+00:00
I always liked Saruman as a character btw^^

Which argument is right really depends on a realistic evaluation of the situation.

To me I just have a bad gut feeling when we (the west) force China to oppose us.

I also had a bad gut feeling when we outsourced our technology there. We let the buy our companies while China only allowed joint ventures with state controlled companies.

Why didn't we pick up the fight 10 years earlier if they are so evil that we cannot let them win?
by ijk | 2025-07-03 19:14:27+00:00
Unlike current videogames, LLMs by default flips the relationship with the limits: the agent is completely open-ended by default, but the player has to play along to a certain extent.

This makes the experience a lot closer to a tabletop game, where you can say that your D&D character does anything you want, and it's a negotiation between the player, the dungeon master, the dice, and the rules as to whether you allow it to happen and what the result is.

An LLM by default tends to be the world's most permissive dungeon master, so the burden of keeping things consistent shifts to the player. Early AI Dungeon gameplay is a typical example. Feels kind of like forum roleplaying, if you're familiar with it--there's no technical limit to what you can write so social conventions (and the mods) are what's preventing you from god-modding.

This is very different from the "try to break everything" way a lot of video game players approach things.

We might be able to eventually build an LLM system where fantasy knights don't know javascript and you can't summon a dragon by typing "there's a dragon." But that's going to take a lot of hard technical work, because it's very unnatural for an LLM out of the box.
Ask HN: I give in, what are the resources for picking up AI-assisted coding?
by dhosek | 2025-07-03 19:15:35+00:00
I’m very much an AI skeptic. My limited exposure has me thinking, OK, it sometimes reduces typing, but it’s as often wrong as not, but then I hear people talking about big productivity increases with AI. So what are the tools people are using? Ideally, I don‘t want to have to learn a new IDE (I’m firmly ensconced in the Jetbrains family of IDEs), but I guess if I must I must. Pointers to good tutorials (I prefer text over video) and documentation would be welcome.
by jama211 | 2025-07-03 19:16:15+00:00
I don’t know about the use of the word strongly, it’s one theory that is so very far from being considered fact by the scientific community at this point in time that “strongly” seems disingenuous.

Regardless, it’s a weird effect of articles where even a negative article can cause positive belief. I.e. an article debunking a myth can sometimes spread the misinformation of the myth, because some people will go from no opinion on it to disagreeing with the article’s conclusion. Common with articles debunking conspiracies.

I feel like I could be watching this in real time ;)
by godelski | 2025-07-03 19:16:20+00:00
Honestly, I often hate how people ask "why?", and don't understand how "for fun" is a legitimate answer. I get it for work or other things, but hobbies? We do lots of things for fun! Humans were born to play, just like every other animal. It's how we learn and explore the world around us.

And frankly, to quote Knuth

> In fact what I would like to see is thousands of computer scientists let loose to do whatever they want. That's what really advances the field.

This is true for any field, or any project. We're creative creatures. We dream and explore. Major changes almost never come from doing things the way they've always been done. A lot of times "just because" gives you the freedom to try new things and challenge those paradigms. Weirdly, if you always have to justify everything you slow down progress.
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-07-03 19:16:20+00:00
> If a director/producer wants film grain added to their digital content, that's where it should be done in post. Not by some devs working for a streaming platform. The use of grain or not is a creative decision made by the creators of the work. That's where it should remain

Why? If you're spending a significant chunk of your bits just transmitting data that could be effectively recreated on the client for free, isn't that wasteful? Sure, maybe the grains wouldn't be at the exact same coordinates, but it's not like the director purposefully placed each grain in the first place.

I recognize that the locally-produced grain doesn't look quite right at the moment, but travel down the hypothetical with me for a moment. If you could make this work, why wouldn't you?

--------

...and yes, I acknowledge that once the grain is being added client side, the next logical step would be "well, we might as well let viewers turn it off." But, once we've established that client-side grain makes sense, what are you going to do about people having preferences? Should we outlaw de-noising video filters too?

I agree that the default setting should always match what the film maker intended—let's not end up with a TV motion smoothing situation, please for the love of god—but if someone actively decides "I want to watch this without the grain for my own viewing experience"... okay? You do you.

...and I will further acknowledge that I would in fact be that person! I hate grain. I modded Cuphead to remove the grain and I can't buy the Switch version because I know it will have grain. I respect the artistic decision but I don't like it and I'm not hurting anyone.
by vineyardmike | 2025-07-03 19:16:26+00:00
Can't argue with what works, but...

All these benefits also apply to SQLite, but SQLite is also typed, indexed, and works with tons of tools and libraries.

It can even be stored as a static file on various serving options mentioned above. Even better, it can be served on a per-page basis, so you can download just the index to the client, who can query for specific chunks of the database, further reducing the bandwidth required to serve.
by ReDeiPirati | 2025-07-03 19:16:29+00:00
I'd have agreed with you, if the principles would be different. But what was showed in the content is EXACTLY what those tools are doing today. Actually those tools are way more powerful and considering & covering way more scenarios.

> There’s nothing wrong with starting from scratch or rebuilding an existing tool from the ground up. There’s no reason to blindly build from the status quo.

Generally speaking all the options are ok, but not if you want to have something up as fast as you can or if your team is piloting something. I think the time you spend to vibe code it is greater than to setting any of those tools up.

And BTW, you shouldn't vibe code something that flows proprietary data. At least you would work with co-pilots
by easyThrowaway | 2025-07-03 19:16:58+00:00
Uhhh...No, it's more like "we're keeping the corpse of capitalism around and pretending it to be alive because having to accept that would mean completely revisiting modern society".

In the last 40 years capitalism has stopped being an economic model and has become theology. I mean, sure, it lasted way more than soviet communism before ending up in the same way, I'll give to it.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-03 19:17:09+00:00
I think the more simple and complete solution is to limit multiple characters interactions with one object similar to the way the rules limit one character interacting with multiple objects. Note that even without readied actions, an infinite number of characters could still pass an object in the space of a round, each passing it on their turn, so long as they were arranged in space in initiative order, so limiting readied actions both doesn't solve this (and allowing readied actions to be a bypass to others readied actions opens up as much space for exploitation as it closes.)
by empaone | 2025-07-03 19:17:53+00:00
any high-utilization workload with a chatty protocol dominated by small IOs such as: * distributed filesystems such as MooseFS, Ceph, Gluster used for hyperconverged infrastructure. * SANs hosting VMs with busy OLTP databases * OLTP replication * CXL memory expansion where remote memory needs to be as close to inter-NUMA node latency as possible
by sillywalk | 2025-07-03 19:18:41+00:00
> I heard NASA used their Amiga systems

Yes. "Amigas take in all the telemetry data from the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients of up to fifth order polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display to the engineers working the launch."[1]

[0] https://hackaday.com/2021/08/16/retrotechtacular-amiga-pips-...

[1] http://obligement.free.fr/articles_traduction/amiganasa_en.p...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPD9HA8Unw&t=1s
by MatteoFrigo | 2025-07-03 19:18:56+00:00
The specifics depend on local regulations, but roughy speaking: the government gives you a document in a standard format (eg MDOC). Your phone stores the document, with cooperation from a secure element that binds the document to the phone. The website you visit verifies the proof. The government gives documents to whatever wallet they want, which may be a special government wallet. They may or may not give the document to Google Wallet.
by dotnet00 | 2025-07-03 19:19:30+00:00
Probably similar to the guy who was gloating on Twitter about building a service with vibe coding and without any programming knowledge around the peak of the vibe coding madness.

Only for people to start screwing around with his database and API keys because the generated code just stuck the keys into the Javascript and he didn't even have enough of a technical background to know that was something to watch out for.

IIRC he resorted to complaining about bullying and just shut it all down.
by Confiks | 2025-07-03 19:19:51+00:00
It's a very interesting solution that allows for multi-show unlinkability to be married to hardware binding using existing ECDSA hardware keys. It's not limited to age verification; it can be applied to arbitrary attributes.

It's also an unfathomably complex solution [1] which only a few people in the world will grok, and far more complex than existing solutions such as Idemix or BBS+, which lack such a hardware binding on existing hardware.

Age verification in a privacy preserving way is a really hot topic at the moment, but it will always be possible to bypass it – as will any commonly held anonymous boolean – in quite trivial ways. For example by setting up an open proxy to disclose genuine attributes. There are some privacy preserving mitigations, for example cryptography that'll make you linkable when disclosing more than k times per time period, or detecting slower-than-near-light-speed disclosure in a face-to-face disclosure scenario.

However, these mitigations will never be completely secure. That might not be a problem if it's admitted beforehand so expectations are correctly set: it's a barrier to protect the naïve, not an impenetrable fortress. However, if the expectations are that only age verification that cannot be bypassed is "adequate", we only have to wait for the first incidents in production apps after which the open source and privacy story will be abandoned in the name of security.

[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/2010.pdf and https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1608.pdf
by plorkyeran | 2025-07-03 19:20:35+00:00
The problem with this interpretation is that it relies on hyper-literal RAW when it's convenient and physics when it's convenient. If you apply the rules of physics to the wooden rod, then the answer is simple: the peasant railgun cannot make the rod travel several miles in 6 seconds. If you apply D&D RAW, the rod can travel infinitely far, but does not have momentum and doesn't do anything when it reaches its destination. You only get the silly result when you apply RAW to one part of it and ignore it for another part.
by FuriouslyAdrift | 2025-07-03 19:20:51+00:00
The Video Toaster was the first successful competitor to the horribly expensive Avid system ($100k+) for non-linear video editing, titling, SMTPE code syncing, etc. and ran on an Amiga 2000 as a double card. I think it was $3k.

It was used to make the first 3 seasons of Babylon 5 and all of the sub graphics for Sealquest DSV.

As an aside, Dana Carveys brother was one of the lead designers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Toaster