MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by OtomotO | 2025-07-15 08:02:08+00:00
No, it's overinvestment.

And I don't see how most people are divided in two groups or appear to be.

Either it's total shit, or it's the holy cup of truth, here to solve all our problems.

It's neither. It's a tool. Like a shovel, it's good at something. And like a shovel it's bad at other things. E.g. I wouldn't use a shovel to hammer in a nail.

LLMs will NEVER become true AGI. But do they need to? No, or course not!

My biggest problem with LLMs isn't the shit code they produce from time to time, as I am paid to resolve messes, it's the environmental impact of MINDLESSLY using one.

But whatever. People like cults and anti-cults are cults too.
by sergiolema | 2025-07-15 08:04:07+00:00
Could the future of backend development be… no code at all? We've all seen the rise of no-code frontend tools, transforming web design from a coding marathon to a visual sprint. Yet, the backend often remains a fortress of endpoints, database schemas, and authentication flows, seemingly immune to the no-code revolution. Or is it?

Recently I've been playing a little bit about no-code tools to implement a backend. And the result was quite interesting.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-15 08:04:14+00:00
Right. Spreadsheeds already delivered on their promise (and then some) decades ago, and the irony is, many people - especially software engineers - still don't see it.

> Before spreadsheets you had to beg for months for the IT department to pick your request, and then you'd have to wait a quarter or two for them to implement a buggy version of your idea. After spreadsheets, you can hack together a buggy version of your idea yourself over a weekend.

That is still the refrain of corporate IT. I see plenty of comments both here and on wider social media, showing that many in our field still just don't get why people resort to building Excel sheets instead of learning to code / asking your software department to make a tool for you.

I guess those who do get it end up working on SaaS products targeting the "shadow IT" market :).
by anal_reactor | 2025-07-15 08:05:14+00:00
1. People are indeed stupid. I don't understand why there's so much belief in human intelligence while there's so much proof of the contrary

2. Sometimes intelligent people don't want to engage with the media. Attention is a finite resource, and when I'm tired after 8 hours of work, 30 minutes of recommended daily exercise, two hours of house chores and one hour of depressive thoughts, I just don't have the energy to engage with your song about a topic that's completely irrelevant to my daily life.

3. Quite often media that's supposed to be good is actually quite shitty. Good media should have layers: surface-level literal fun catches your attention, then you discover there's some depth to it, and then you start digging and you realize it's actually very complex and interesting. The problem is that lots of media either just grab my attention for nothing, or start right from the beginning with difficult topics, and then it's "woo the audience is stupid because they won't engage with my media" no bro, I just think your media is boring.
by keeda | 2025-07-15 08:05:49+00:00
LLMs may not learn on the fly (yet), but these days they do have some sort of a memory that they automatically bring into their context. It's probably just a summary that's loaded into its context, but I've had dozens of conversations with ChatGPT over the years and it remembers my past discussions, interests and preferences. It has many times connected dots across conversations many months apart to intuit what I had in mind and proactively steered the discussion to where I wanted it to go.

Worst case, if they don't do this automatically, you can simply "teach" them by updating the prompt to watch for a specific mistake (similar to how we often add a test when we catch a bug.)

But it need not even be that cumbersome. Even weaker models do surprisingly well with broad guidelines. Case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42150769
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-07-15 08:06:03+00:00
> As a first try, I just copy+pasted the whole library and my whole program into GPT 4.1 and told it to rewrite it using the library.

That's a translation task. Transformer models are excellent at translation tasks (and, for the same reasons, half-decent at fuzzy search and compression), and that's basically all they can do, but generative models tend to be worse at translation tasks than seq2seq models.

So the fact that a GPT model can one-shot this correspondence, given a description of the library, suggests there's a better way to wire a transformer model up that'd be way more powerful. Unfortunately, this isn't my field, so I'm not familiar with the literature and don't know what approaches would be promising.
by junon | 2025-07-15 08:07:46+00:00
The choice for log graphs here probably wasn't necessary and seems to have hurt more than it helped. Despite looking relatively similar, memcached performed 3x faster than redis on some benchmarks whilst appearing only slightly above average.

Otherwise, very thorough and well done benchmark from the looks of it. Redis my beloved not holding up so well against some others these days it looks like.
by webpro | 2025-07-15 08:07:52+00:00
Working with and debugging ANSI control codes and escape sequences can be a challenge.

This free web-based tool helps to inspect the input, visualize colors and styling, and list control codes. By using a proper tokenizer and parser (not just regex hacks), it supports all sorts of control codes. The parser is open source and available too (find links in "about").

Type or paste text in the black text area, or try out the examples. Use the lookup table to filter & find specific codes.

Feedback welcome, I’d love to know what’s confusing, missing, or especially useful.
Show HN: Minesweeper game I built to be real-time Multiplayer
by bluelegacy | 2025-07-15 08:09:19+00:00
With the goal of creating a Minesweeper game that isn't just single player, here is what I came up with:

• Live games allowing several people to play at the same time

• Scoring system rewarding correct actions

• Different board options depending on skill level
by guelo | 2025-07-15 08:09:26+00:00
Sorry I don't buy your argument.

(First I disagree with A Secular Age's thesis that secularism is a new force. Christian and Muslim churches were jailing and killing nonbelievers from the beginning. People weren't dumber than we are today, all the absurdity and self-serving hypocrisy that turns a lot of people off to authoritarian religion were as evident to them as they are to us.)

The idea is not that AI is on a pre-planned path, it's just that technological progress will continue, and from our vantage point today predicting improving AI is a no brainer. Technology has been accelerating since the invention of fire. Invention is a positive feedback loop where previous inventions enable new inventions at an accelerating pace. Even when large civilizations of the past collapsed and libraries of knowledge were lost and we entered dark ages human ingenuity did not rest and eventually the feedback loop started up again. It's just not stoppable. I highly recommend Scott Alexander's essay Meditations On Moloch on why tech will always move forward, even when the results are disastrous to humans.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-07-15 08:10:24+00:00
I don't understand what you mean.

There already exist:

- Apps like Tile (lost device sound) and CodeRED that effectively act like EAS/EBS/AMBER Alerts.

- There are zillion of water stream gauges all over Flash Flood Alley operated by the probably soon-to-defunded NOAA.[0]

0. https://water.noaa.gov/wfo/ewx#@=260.834452,29.625805,7.9432...
by xwolfi | 2025-07-15 08:10:50+00:00
This feels wrong, I work in China in a European multinational with low number of Americans, yet we all spell in a mixture with no expectation of consistency: half the sentence can be in British, the rest in American and it will be an Australian reading the email and they will feel absolutely nothing: multi national corporations full of non-native speakers are completely used to the confusion. I'm French myself, I write color as often as I write colour, and practice and practise are completely identical to me.
by bubblebeard | 2025-07-15 08:11:19+00:00
LLM:s and CA:s are most likely here to stay. The question is how we use them correctly. I’ve tried using an LLM to help me learn new programming languages, suggest alternative solutions to some mess I’ve created, and explain things I do not understand. For all of these things, it’s been very helpful. You can’t rely on it, you have to use common sense and cross reference things you do not at least have some prior knowledge of. Just saying, it’s way easier than attempting the same using traditional search engines.

One thing it will not do is replace developers. I do not see that happening. But, in the future, our work may be a little less about syntax and more about actual problem solving. Not sure how I feel about that yet though.
by alexey-salmin | 2025-07-15 08:11:57+00:00
Old movies are kind of slow but I'm much less frustrated because they are short: an hour, at most two. That's more than enough to tell a story. Modern movies are two hours at minimum with some crossing over three with absolutely nothing to tell (e.g Babylon 2022, completely pissed me off).

I don't think the reason is "public needed time to process info", more likely both the length and the intensity (of changing sights, not of meaning) were ultimately determined by production costs. Filming two hours is more expensive than one hour. Filling an hour with 60 one-minute cuts is more expensive then 30 two-minute cuts because of all the setup and decorations.

Production is now cheaper thanks to CGI, box offices are larger thanks to higher prices and the global market. You no longer have to be frugal when filming, the protection against sloppy overextended movies is now taste and not money. And taste is scarce.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-15 08:13:02+00:00
I...don't. The story was fine, and the execution was understandable given the state of the tooling, but viewed as a film and not a tech demo of advances in what is acheivab;e with modern AI tools it's not great. Many of the voices have the same very noticeable robotic features, and the delivery, whether narration or diegetic dialogue, is monotonous; the "angry crowd" is almost the only place in the whole work that speaking voices appear impacted by emotion, and even that feels off. The scenes have consistent, very limited range of lengths and a very limited palette of simple continuous camera movements, consistently using one per clip.

Even though the mockumentary format is an excellent choice for minimizing the impact of several of those problems, they are still pretty glaring there, even if less so than if you tried to make literally any other style of film with the same techniques.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-07-15 08:14:02+00:00
LLMs are here, they aren't going away. Therefore they are part of our future. The real question is what else is in our future and whether LLMs are all we need. I think the answer to that is a solid no and the people phrasing the future in faster/better LLMs are probably missing the point as much as people thinking of cars as coaches with faster horses.

That future isn't inevitable but highly likely given on the trajectory we're on. But you can't specify a timeline with certainty for what amounts to some highly tricky and very much open research questions related to this that lots of people are working on. But predicting that they are going to come up completely empty handed seems even more foolish. They'll figure out something. And it might surprise us. LLMs certainly did.

It's not inevitable that they'll come up with something of course. But at this point they'd have to be fundamentally wrong about quite a few things. And even if they are, there's no guarantee that they wouldn't just figure that out and address that. They'll come up with something. But it probably won't be just faster horses.
When to Post on HN: Analyzed 23k posts(June 2025)
by sophianara | 2025-07-15 08:14:23+00:00
Conventional wisdom says: Post Tuesday morning for max traffic. Data says: That’s wrong. (at least, in June 2025)

1. Best Time of Day Post between midnight–1AM → 2x more comments than average, yet only 2% of posts are made then.

Avg votes: 25.7 (vs 18 overall) Avg comments: 20 (vs 10 overall)

Other high-performing time slots: Votes: 4AM, 7AM, 8–10PM, 10PM+ → Avg votes > 20 Comments: 9PM, 11PM → Avg comments > 11

2. Best Day of Week Upvotes: Saturday/Sunday → Avg votes > 19 Comments: Sunday/Monday → Avg comments > 10

But beware:

18%+ of posts happen on Monday → high competition

Sunday has lower competition, yet performs well—easiest day to hit the front page with the same vote count.

TL;DR For the best shot at visibility: Post Sunday, between midnight and 1AM.

See link for full data analysis
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-15 08:14:25+00:00
There are two different groups with different perspectives and relationships to the "AI hype"; I think we're talking in circles in this subthread because we're talking about different people.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44208831. Quoting myself (sorry):

> For me, one of the Beneficiaries, the hype seems totally warranted. The capability is there, the possibilities are enormous, pace of advancement is staggering, and achieving them is realistic. If it takes a few years longer than the Investor group thinks - that's fine with us; it's only a problem for them.
by selfhoster11 | 2025-07-15 08:14:36+00:00
If you mean clearly, noticeably erratic or incoherent behaviour, then that hasn't been my experience for >=4-bit inference of 32B models, or in my R1 setup. I think the others might have been referring to this happening with smaller models (sub-24B), which suffer much more after being quantised below 4 or 5 bits.

My R1 most likely isn't as smart as the output coming from an int8 or FP16 API, but that's just a given. It still holds up pretty well for what I did try.
by PMunch | 2025-07-15 08:16:04+00:00
The headline as I read the article was "How I Solved the Century-Old Mystery of a Miraculous Shipwreck Survivor", but it doesn't actually detail _how_ the mystery was solved. They talked to a couple different people, found an old newspaper clipping, but the crucial

> Davidson was picked up by a lifeboat and taken to the Storstad, which survived the collision.

The actual meat of the article, doesn't have any clear source. I guess it might've come from the mentioned piece in "St. Thomas Journal", but it's not exactly clear.

Cool story, but not exactly the "How I solved a mystery" that you'd expect from the headline.
by stiray | 2025-07-15 08:16:09+00:00
I completely agree with author on LLMs. I consider AI as stock inflating noise, like nosql databases (...) were. The nosql ended, after all the hype, as sometimes usable.

I am typically buying ebooks. When I read it and figure out that ebook is rare jewel, I also buy hardcover if available.

Shoshana Zuboff’s, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism is one of those hardcovers.

Recommending reading it.
by croemer | 2025-07-15 08:16:32+00:00
17 now - great questions (I watched the YouTube clip https://youtu.be/_nRU9XUbnpM?si=ep1pHNCfWmQKVf5b)

I feel you could be more aggressive in the questions given that no follow-up seems to be allowed. Apple's "were doing all of this for security" is clearly just a cheap excuse. You're given only one shot and are up against professional deflectors (lawyers).

The lawyer's "I'm not discrediting you for who you do or don't get money from like Spotify" is just cheap rhetoric 101. He prefers to chip "You think You know better how to design our OS" rather than answer the question on how non-EU devs can test. Empty "we're engaging with Google/Mozilla...". That's not an answer!
by DiogenesKynikos | 2025-07-15 08:16:38+00:00
> They do have rights. Why are you lying?

I'd actually turn that around and ask you the very same question. You know that Palestinians in the West Bank have no rights whatsoever, and I don't understand what you're playing at with your obvious gambit here.

> They have PA, and they have all their rights there as determined by the PA.

The PA is totally powerless, as I'm sure you know. It gets to take out the trash and run the schools. The Israelis hold all the real power in the West Bank, and they do whatever they want, wherever they want. The IDF wants to invade a Palestinian city nominally under PA jurisdiction? No problem. The IDF wants to cut off the tax revenue of the PA? No problem. The IDF wants to nab someone in the middle of a Palestinian city? No problem. The PA is just as powerless as the Warsaw Judenrat was.

> So if some Jews in Israel do something, then the Arabs everywhere else are allowed to ethnically cleanse the Jews in other places.

I never said anything of the sort. The Jews of the Arab world were treated horribly after the founding of Israel. They suffered because of what people they had no control over (European and American Zionists) did.

> How does it change the choice that Palestinians made in Gaza?

It directly contradicts your claim that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was an attempt to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. You're just changing the subject now.

> So? It was a smart move, and proved itself.

The "So what?" is that this undermines your claim that Israel is willing to trade land for peace with the Palestinians. They only traded land for peace with Egypt because Egypt was a credible military threat (which the Palestinians are not).

> Like man, you just showed with this reply alone that you don’t care about human rights, you just don’t like Jews.

I'm Jewish.

But this is how every conversation with a Zionist ends, in my experience. After they pull out all the talking points they learned at summer camp, they fall back to their last line of defense: "You just hate Jews." Or its cousin: "You're just a self-hating Jew." As if loving oneself requires one to support a little ultranationalist state on the other side of the world that's currently carrying out a genocide.
by wenjian | 2025-07-15 08:17:51+00:00
I dont know, just thought it's interesting, and the idea is come from a real thing I saw on internet, called 'Day Clock', so I think why not have a digital one.

you can buy on amazon and hang in wall, useless for most people I think, just for fun.

also code is open source: https://github.com/jwenjian/weekday-clock
by ohdeargodno | 2025-07-15 08:18:13+00:00
If you, yourself have native code you're trying to build, it only required bumping the NDK (which is automatically bumped when you upgrade the android gradle plugin), so that's mostly an automatic step (provided you're not stuck on old, AGP7 build scripts).

If you depend on a package that uses a native library, you wait for them to update. Or you fork, bump AGP and rebuild.

It's a very minor change, unless you depend on unmaintained code.
by sgt101 | 2025-07-15 08:18:59+00:00
Looking up a project on github, downloading it and using it can give you 10000 lines of perfectly working code for free.

Also, when I use Cursor I have to watch it like a hawk or it deletes random bits of code that are needed or adds in extra code to repair imaginary issues. A good example was that I used it to write a function that inverted the axis on some data that I wanted to present differently, and then added that call into one of the functions generating the data I needed.

Of course, somewhere in the pipeline it added the call into every data generating function. Cue a very confused 20 minutes a week later when I was re-running some experiments.
by bottom999mottob | 2025-07-15 08:19:16+00:00
In theory, if a program is written in a high-level language and you have a correct implementation (interpreter, compiler, runtime) of that language on a new system, then the program should be able to run there.

In practice, this is not always so straightforward, especially as you move closer to machine-level details or consider compiled binaries.

Many compiled programs are built for a specific architecture (x86, ARM, etc.). They won’t run on a different architecture unless you provide either: A cross-compiler (to generate new native code for that architecture), or an emulator (which mimics the old architecture on the new one)
by mectors | 2025-07-15 08:19:39+00:00
Greentic.ai is an open-source platform to create and run digital workers—autonomous bots that call APIs, tools, and plugins. Define workflows in YAML, and the Rust/WASM-based engine handles execution. Supports messaging channels (Telegram, Slack, etc.), custom MCP tools, and dynamic flows. Think Zapier/NodeRed meets AI agents, but fully programmable and privacy-friendly.

v0.2.0 out now. Local-first. Cloud + oAuth coming soon. https://greentic.ai
by snickmy | 2025-07-15 08:20:21+00:00
An axiom of inevitabilism, especially among the highest echelons, is that you end up making it a reality. It’s the kind of belief that shapes reality itself. In simple terms: the fact that the Googles, Anthropics, and OpenAIs of the world have a strong interest in making LLMs the way AI pans out will most likely ensure that LLMs become the dominant paradigm — until someone else, with equal leverage, comes along to disrupt them.
by msgodel | 2025-07-15 08:20:31+00:00
I think if you're jewish it is healthy and acceptable to concern yourself with the well being of Israel the same way it's healthy for anglo Americans to concern themselves with the state of the UK.

The problem is when people drag the rest of the country into it. And that's mostly a problem because the US is this weird international country now so we have to make all these compromises.
by mns | 2025-07-15 08:21:08+00:00
>evelopers haven't even started extracting the value of LLMs with agent architectures yet.

Which is basically what? The infinite monkey theorem? Brute forcing solutions for problems at huge costs? Somehow people have been tricked to actually embrace and accept that now they have to pay subscriptions from 20$ to 300$ to freaking code? How insane is that, something that was a very low entry point and something that anyone could do, is now being turned into some sort of classist system where the future of code is subscriptions you pay for companies ran by sociopaths who don't care that the world burns around them, as long as their pockets are full.
by imiric | 2025-07-15 08:21:21+00:00
> Or, if we trust that LLMs are useful for all tasks, then it's practically useful to know what they're not good at.

The thing is that there's no way to objectively measure this. Benchmarks are often gamed, and like a sibling comment mentioned, the output is not stable.

Also, everyone has different criteria for what constitutes "good". To someone with little to no programming experience, LLMs would feel downright magical. Experienced programmers, or any domain expert for that matter, would be able to gauge the output quality much more accurately. Even among the experienced group, there are different levels of quality criteria. Some might be fine with overlooking certain issues, or not bother checking the output at all, while others have much higher standards of quality.

The problem is when any issues that are pointed out are blamed on the user, instead of the tool. Or even worse: when the issues are acknowledged, but are excused as "this is the way these tools work."[1,2]. It's blatant gaslighting that AI companies love to promote for obvious reasons.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44483897#44485037

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44483897#44485366
by xwolfi | 2025-07-15 08:21:25+00:00
Quelle que soit la facon dont ils ecrivent, ce sera toujours une faute d'orthographe, puisque la seule vraie facon d'ecrire serait couleur. L'anglais, americain ou britannique, n'est qu'une geante faute d'orthographe du francais.