MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by viraptor | 2025-07-22 20:48:09+00:00
What people use is going to be very environment biased. For example scientific research uses conda a lot, but I've rarely seen it used by code devs. People using only python will often have more system wide setup with tools and linters than those mixing different projects. Also you'll see some deprecated in tool use in projects which are older and not worth changing without a good reason. Etc.

With that out of the way: mise for managing versions of all the runtimes (asdf is fine too), uv for packages (previously poetry which is ok), mypy type checking for things I make. Otherwise I switch between projects a lot so just use whatever the projects use by default.

Deployment tools aren't really language specific (when they are they're rarely good). The editing, it's just Cursor, although I did like the jetbrains IDE previously.

But overall - just give things a go. It's usually quite easy to swap those tools as needed.
by mcv | 2025-07-22 20:48:15+00:00
> they were probably always there but hidden

That's what I meant by resurgence. They were never gone, but less dominant, losing in influence. And now they're, one by one, being forced back into our faces again, undoing much of the progress we seemed to have made.

> I thought science and rational thought would be spread by enhanced worldwide communications

Yeah, we'd have so much information at our fingertips. Surely that would usher in a new era of democratization and enlightenment. Turns out it made lies spread a lot faster than truth.
by michaelt | 2025-07-22 20:48:52+00:00
As I understand things, part of what you get with these coding agents is automating the process of 1. LLM writes broken code, such as using an imaginary function, 2. user compiles/runs the code and it errors because the function doesn't exist, 3. paste the error message into the LLM, 4. LLM tries to fix the error, 5. Loop.

Much like a company developing a new rocket by launching, having it explode, fixing the cause of that explosion, then launching another rocket, in a loop until their rockets eventually stop exploding.

I don't connect my live production database to what I think of as an exploding rocket, and I find it bewildering that apparently other people do....
by bllguo | 2025-07-22 20:49:10+00:00
1. it is highly relevant outside the western bubble, 2. their domestic market is large enough that china does not have to whore itself out to the west like korea or japan, 3. you gloss over the deliberate suppression by the US regime. japan was not "culturally relevant" in the US before the late 80s when they bent the knee
by 0x457 | 2025-07-22 20:49:42+00:00
Interesting, yesterday I was looking at the source code of some library, and noticed a lot TODOs scattered all over. At first, I thought it's a red flag and I shouldn't use this library.

However, once I read them all of them, were exactly this: very rare edge cases, minor optimizations, and notes about future optimizations possible optimizations.

I pretty much immediately adopted this style of todos.
Thursday Is Durable Computing Day
by jedberg | 2025-07-22 20:49:52+00:00
This Thursday, July 24, is durable computing day! It’s a day for everyone to learn about durable computing and why you want to build software that is reliable, durable, and ideally crashproof, right from the start.

First up at Noon ET/9am PT we have Temporal, the current leader in the durable compute space, giving a webinar on the basics of durable computing and why you would want to use it. You can sign up here: https://pages.temporal.io/webinar-durable-execution.html

Next at 1pm ET/10am PT you can hear Restate talk about how their external coordinator saves the state of your applications and works with your agentic frameworks to add durability to your agents. Sign up here: https://lu.ma/restatedev?e=calev-fNFE5Yg1N6xYiBQ

And last but certainly not least, you can join DBOS at 2pm ET/11am PT to hear DBOS customer Ontologize talk about how they use DBOS to automate cloud deployments, hear about the DBOS roadmap and the upcoming DBOS Golang library, which adds durability to your software with just a few lines of code and no dependencies other than your existing Postgres database, including all of your agentic AI. You can sign up to join here: https://lu.ma/sfx9yccw

We hope to see you Thursday and look forward to celebrating a world of software that doesn’t crash!
by RumourRider | 2025-07-22 20:50:05+00:00
No freedom of expression is a nebulous term that was invented obfuscate the very discussion we are having. It consider it to be nothing more than weasel words.

Pointing at extreme examples like North Korea and pretending their isn't an issue because we are better them is classic whataboutism.

I also don't care about what some random index that people pull out of their backsides. I care about the legality. Freedom of Speech in the US is enshrined in the constitution. It is not enshrined anywhere in UK law.

As for the section you quoted, that is made effectively moot by the exceptions that I originally quoted.

Generally I am pretty tired of people engaging in apologia for the British state.
by cheald | 2025-07-22 20:50:27+00:00
Tailwind solves a somewhat different problem. It's maybe easiest to think of it as a bunch of aliases for writing inline styles. The fundamental problem with CSS at scale is leaky abstractions, right? Tailwind moves the abstractions down a level, so that rather than attaching semantic classes, you're just composing the properties of an element directly, except you don't have to remember if you used px or rem for this padding, or what the media query for a mobile breakpoint is. This tends to reduce the incidence of high-gravity classes which tend to accumulate features, at the cost of some verbosity vs something like Bootstrap, though it's significantly less verbose than equivalent inline styles would be.
by brailsafe | 2025-07-22 20:51:00+00:00
I really think most of these statements apply to both political sides of messaging in a majority of cases. You can't talk about in-group out-group unless you draw a line somewhere, and in your comment you drew a line between people who represent science and rationality and those that are fearful and reactionary, which you'd believe to be a sensible place to draw that line if you habitually consume basically any media. The actual science seems mostly incidental to any kind of conversation about it.

Some people are crippled by anxiety and fear of the unknown or fear of their neighbors. It's sad, but it's not unique to political alignment.
by theglocksaint | 2025-07-22 20:51:03+00:00
Non-Cartesian sampling of k-space is routinely used today in clinical practice and the reconstruction time or resources isn't a limiting factor. It is the reduced SNR among other effects that is limiting in these approaches.

If one MRI scanner can be more efficient, there is enough competition in the market for it to be wildly successful. The major vendors have enough technical parity for efficiency to be a key difference maker. Hospitals and health systems are the customer and they need throughput.
by SkyBelow | 2025-07-22 20:51:53+00:00
To some extent, physics/chemistry/etc. challenge the notion that free will exists, but that challenge is far enough removed and rarely touched upon that people who believe in free will don't feel that modern science is attacking that belief, and the scientists working on it generally see free will or any mechanisms of the brain as far too complex when they are studying things on the order for a few particles or few molecules.

Some of neurology/psychology gets a bit closer, but science of the brain doesn't have major theories that are taught on the same level nor have much impact on public policy. The closest I can think of is how much public awareness of what constitutes a mental disorder lags behind science, but that area is still constantly contested even among the researchers themselves and thus prevents a unified message being given to the public that they must then respond to (choosing to believe the science or not).
by caconym_ | 2025-07-22 20:52:25+00:00
Not only that, they also have a fairly conservative approach to design that seems to keep a lot of the stupid bullshit out of their cars. I own multiple late model Japanese cars from different manufacturers and have had zero issues with them. The ADAS systems they do have, while arguably basic by 2025 standards, function flawlessly. All essential controls (including climate control) are physical.
by perihelions | 2025-07-22 20:52:31+00:00
> "Of those roughly 1,300 events that triggered alerts, only three were false positives. One of those was triggered by a different system sending an alert that vibrated a lot of phones, something that should be relatively easy to compensate for in software. The other two were both due to thunderstorms, where heavy thunder caused widespread vibrations centered on a specific location. This led the team to better model acoustic events, which should prevent something similar from happening in the future."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/07/how-android-phones-b...

Do the range of detectable acoustic sources include military jets, drones, and bomb blasts (i.e., gauging effectiveness of targeting?) I don't know what I'm supposed to think of tech companies turning gadgets into remote-root physics sensors without user consent. Maybe I'm reflexively cynical; I can't trust a FAANG with yet another side-channel attack, *even if* the first (public) application is, on appearance, a life-saving unalloyed good.
by thelittlenag | 2025-07-22 20:52:36+00:00
I've really enjoyed Haidt's book, though its really a couple of different books in one. I need to read his other work.

To your point about left and right, an interesting point I heard recently is that the left is coalition-driven whereas the right is consensus-driven (at least in US politics). Mapping this back to Haidt, one of his findings is that the left tends to greatly emphasize one or two of the "moral taste receptors", with the right having a roughly equal emphasis between them. It isn't clear to me how these two points might explain each other, but I do wonder if there isn't some self-reinforcement there. If there is, I wonder how/if that might explain political systems more widely.
by eddythompson80 | 2025-07-22 20:52:57+00:00
unRAID is geared towards homelab style deployments. Its main advantages over typical RAID is it's flexibility (https://www.snapraid.it/compare):

- It lets you throw JBODs (of ANY size) and you can create a "RAID" over them.

- The biggest drive must be a parity drive(s).

- N parity = surviving N drive failures.

- You can expand your storage pool 1 drive at a time. You need to recalculate parity for the full array.

The actual data is spread across drives. If a drive fails, you rebuild it from the parity. This is another implementation (using MergerFS + SnapRAID) https://perfectmediaserver.com/02-tech-stack/snapraid/

It's a very simple model to think of compared to something like ZFS. You can add/remove capacity AND protection as you go.

Its perf is significantly less than ZFS of course.
Show HN: Let ChatGPT Plus control any Python or JavaScript object in 3 lines
by eneuman | 2025-07-22 20:53:09+00:00
I built this because I wanted ChatGPT to interact with live Python and JS functions and objects — not just simulate code. With this, you can give ChatGPT access to real functions or objects running in your environment, in just 3 lines of code.

No plugins, no API keys — just an open source websockets based "telekinesis" library I created over a few years.

I’ve used it to: - Control a Jupyter notebook from ChatGPT - Let ChatGPT directly find, read and edit files on one of my repos. - Fully control an EC2 instance I spun up for it — file access, subprocesses, sudo apt install, everything - so it made me a headless Android compiler (which worked after several "check the output" and "go for it" messages).

Would love feedback — especially use cases you’d want to try, or anything confusing - or any issues you encounter.

(you can check out the simple server that powers all this at https://payperrun.com/e-neuman/fun/chadGPT?display=server )

(telekinesis library if you're interested at https://github.com/telekinesis-inc/telekinesis/ )

With great power comes great responsibility and I hope you have fun!
by jjk166 | 2025-07-22 20:53:30+00:00
I think one of the main benefits of a four-day workweek is having a regular weekday free, meaning you can easily do errands and things without having to take time off work or cut into the shared time of the traditional weekend where many things are closed and we have so many of our non-work social commitments. Were the four-day workweek to be mass adopted, I would hope we as a society would be smart enough to not all choose the same four days.
by api | 2025-07-22 20:53:44+00:00
I have a 2022 model Leaf, the one with 230 miles range, and it's... boring in a good way. It just works. Zero problems whatsoever and zero noticeable battery degradation after about 27K miles. Only big downside is poor rapid charging, but we use ours as a city car and rarely if ever need it.

Put a CCS fast charge port and better battery cooling in this thing and it'd be the perfect boring reliable EV with physical dash controls (no touch screen BS).
by edgineer | 2025-07-22 20:53:48+00:00
Another era of drive capacity, another increase in dec/bin unit deviation. 1 PB = 0.888 PiB. So 0.873 PiB with four of these drives.

I'm glad this flyer at least uses KiB; you'll see drive spec sheets with base-2 "KB" and "MB" but base-10 GB and TB.

But with another prefix transition I'm once again hoping us consumers can get GiB/TiB/PiB values up front.
by IshKebab | 2025-07-22 20:53:50+00:00
> don't come anywhere close to Jira level functionality.

In my experience that's probably a good thing. I've moved from a company using Phabricator to one using Jira. Phabricator had exactly everything we needed and was very nicely designed and worked really nicely.

Jira has everything you need plus loads of other stuff that project managers feel like they need to add. Oh and they'll never clear anything up or fix any config bugs because they don't actually have to ever use the "report bug" form so who cares if there are 100 fields and half of the mandatory ones are hidden in "More fields"? 5 different states for "TODO"? Eh who cares. 3 different ways to say which team a bug is in? Better fill them all in for every bug.

It's better to be missing features than to have features that project managers can configure.
by rglullis | 2025-07-22 20:54:03+00:00
> Ozzy fans, can you help me understand why few people seem to care?

Because this is at best an anecdote for someone who had such a troubled life with alcohol and drugs?

Because his music is so great and influenced so many other great artists that we know that he didn't do those things as a gimmick for attention?

Because I know we shouldn't be looking at rock stars as paragons of moral virtue?
by iwanttocomment | 2025-07-22 20:54:45+00:00
The open secret to EV ownership is to buy after the lease. The depreciation is insane, why pay to rent the car for three years when you can buy it outright after the lease return for a fraction of the cost? EVs with active cooling systems last just about forever but people are still "oh no the battery".

(Still driving my 2012 EV - not a typo - and got a can't-miss off-lease CPO deal on a "new" 2022 this year.)
by Disposal8433 | 2025-07-22 20:54:57+00:00
There is no price anywhere. I would be interested to use that for either my job or for private projects, but where and how much do I pay?

Edit: I looked again and even your pricing pages have no price. I understand that you may want to restrict yourself to rich companies, but I don't understand the point of posting on HN if that's the case.
by Karrot_Kream | 2025-07-22 20:55:08+00:00
That's not a hiring manager. Honestly, what does "AI is now mandatory" even mean? Do LLM code reviewers count? Can I add a `CLAUDE.md` file into my repo and tick the box? How is this requirement enforced?

Also I mean, plenty of companies I interview at have requirements I'm not willing to accept. For example I will not accept either fully remote roles nor fully in person roles. Because I'm working hybrid roles, I insist my commute needs to be within a certain amount of time. At my current experience level I also only insist in working in certain positions on certain things. There is a minimum compensation structure and benefits allotment that I am willing to accept. Employment is an agreement and I only accept the agreement if it matches certain parameters of my own.

What are your expectations for employment? That employers need to have as open a net as possible? I'll be honest if I extrapolate based on your comments I have this fuzzy impression of an anxious software engineer worried about employment becoming more difficult. Is that the angle that this is coming from?
by crabbone | 2025-07-22 20:55:27+00:00
I'm with you on this!

Here's a bit of a marginally related rant.

So, I moved to the Netherlands about four years ago. Of course I needed a bike. Since I was a child, I always fixed my bike if there was a problem. I've replaced punctured tube countless times.

Yet, in the Netherlands, I discovered that on the local bikes the gear box is a lot more complex... and you need to disassemble it in order to remove the back wheel (if you want to replace the tube). It doesn't have that many moving parts, but it's really not made with an eye for easy assembly and disassembly. Not in the field conditions. And the first time I discovered it, to my shame, I ended up pushing my bike to the bike shop to have the tube replaced. I felt like I was telling the shop owner that I peed my pants when I had to ask him to do something that should've been trivial for an adult.

I can't imagine using a wireless gear box. I'll never get on this kind of bike. Some kind of interference and you lose control of the bike? Broken far away from home: push it for hours? This thing probably needs a battery... Is it waterproof? This is such an unimaginably bad idea...
by quink | 2025-07-22 20:55:37+00:00
New cars... but a 22 year old used Toyota, like mine, seems perfectly fine.

Sure, it'll kill me because of the comparative lack of safety, but that seems like a minor sacrifice in the face of needing to deal with a new car.

It also doesn't have pillars the thickness of an elephant's legs, like all new cars, significantly less compromising to visibility all around. It also lacks the now ubiquitous square and raised bonnet.
by dkypuros | 2025-07-22 20:55:43+00:00
Thanks for the thoughtful question— and good luck wrapping up the thesis!

Here’s the shortest road-map I can give for why the heavier formalism matters once you already have low-power execution nailed down.

First, the grammar + proof layer lets you guarantee properties that today’s neural LLMs can only hope to satisfy. Because every production rule carries a machine-checkable proof obligation, you can show that responses will always terminate, stay within a memory budget, or never emit strings outside a whitelisted alphabet. In practice that means the model can be certified for safety-critical or compliance-heavy settings where a probabilistic network is a non-starter.

Second, the same proofs make the system auditable and patchable by domain experts instead of ML engineers. An agronomist can inspect the maize-disease module, see that the recursion proving “all advice paths end with a referenced citation,” and swap in an updated pest table without breaking that guarantee. The edit-compile-prove cycle is minutes, not GPU-months.

Third, formal hooks open the door to hybrid workflows. You can embed the micro-LM inside a larger pipeline—say, a standard transformer model proposes a draft, and our verified core acts as a “lint pass” that repairs grammar, checks facts against a local SQLite cache, and signs the result with a proof artifact. That could be huge for regulated industries that want the creativity of big models and the certainty of formal methods.

Finally, on the speculative side, once responses are proof-carrying you can imagine device-to-device marketplaces of small, composable skills: my weather module proves bounds on forecast error, your SMS gateway proves it redacts PII, we link them and the combined proof still holds. That’s hard to do with opaque neural weights.

So the low-power story gets us in the door; the rigorous formalism is what keeps the door open when reliability, certification, or composability become the bottleneck. Hope that gives you a clearer picture—and when the thesis dust settles I’d love to hear your perspective on how formal methods could push this even further.
by yrcyrc | 2025-07-22 20:55:54+00:00
Had a new Kia for the past five years and there were no issues apart from a speaker replaced under warranty. I cannot trust PSA, Renault, Stellantis or any other brands anymore. (Takata airbags) As for those flagships from renowned brands, it feels like a trend. I ‘did’ trust Volvo but won’t anymore. The way it was handled is particularly poor.
by colechristensen | 2025-07-22 20:56:23+00:00
We need to return to the grand history of the publication of the pamphlet, which is exactly what we want. Short form content, 5 to 50 pages, which is exactly the length that would fit for so many of these business, "popular science", and other kinds of nonfiction books which have good ideas but no business being 250 pages long. Essentially one-off magazines instead of being a periodical, individually published and probably in a smaller format than 8x11/A4-ish sizes for most modern magazines.

https://www.library.illinois.edu/rbx/2015/03/30/the-pamphlet...
by SkyBelow | 2025-07-22 20:57:02+00:00
Was it during Galileo's era or was it a much earlier time with Greek philosophers when the idea of heliocentrism was rejected because the lack of parallax movement of the stars? The idea of stars being so far away they wouldn't show parallax movement wasn't acceptable without stronger evidence than what was available at the time, given how massive that would make outer space, so the simpler explanation was that the sun moved.
by pmoot | 2025-07-22 20:57:14+00:00
Yes, that's mostly right. We also vary the discount value, so it's less a binary discount/no discount and more a range. There is often a cutoff though. Merchants can input a hard cutoff e.g. if they want to ensure everyone gets a discount (great if they also have marketing assets for a sale), or if they want to avoid making their sites feel too 'sales-y'. Otherwise the cutoff is defined by conversion prediction, inventory levels, and a few other inputs.

There's actually a lot more we could do to make this cutoff more intelligent though - e.g. at Uber the cutoff was set to exhaust a certain promotional budget. Or we could target a specific ROI if we eventually have good enough predictions.
by etskinner | 2025-07-22 20:58:11+00:00
They'll probably agree on a settlement where they don't admit any wrongdoing and give him a decent payout, but require him to take down the site and sign an NDA or something. So they don't necessarily need to replace all of them after that

If all he wants is a refund, that should do it. But if he's more interested in warning the world, hopefully he sticks to his guns and makes them give a straight up refund