MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by moshegramovsky | 2025-07-01 07:21:49+00:00
Using Gemini Pro. No, I adopted it all on my own, but work pays. I love it, even though I can't use it on everything. Most developers here are using it, with approval on a per-projext basis.

Lately it's taken over code reviews, for myself and when I review other people's code. Extremely helpful. It's made software development fun again.
by nottorp | 2025-07-01 07:21:52+00:00
> And no, it's not Electron.

> it became clear that they are developing a single web application, and then wrapping it with CapacitorJs to run on native platforms.

So what's the difference? When complaining, Electron is a generic term for instantiating a whole -ing browser to display a RecyclerView (in Android terms). Not necessarily a complaint about Electron in particular.

> offline-first

Humm. Does that mean you plan to interpose your own server between the app and imap? I sure hope not.

If you mean you keep a local copy of the emails, that's about how any decent email app works. Even Apple mail can do it for gmail over imap :)

I may actually be a potential customer, I'm just pessimistic. Not a fan of "join the waitlist" marketing either.

By the way, how much is a latte where you live?
by inferiorhuman | 2025-07-01 07:22:09+00:00
On the derive side, there's the usual proc-macro2/quote/syn trio, but those come up frequently in derive crates due to what they do, and other than that, there's just `heck`, which is again an obvious dependency in context.

They're common dependencies, sure, but not necessarily the same versions. So, yeah, it's entirely possible you'll end up building multiple versions of quote/syn.
by philsnow | 2025-07-01 07:22:45+00:00
> Gmail's threading: Enhanced email organization

Gmail's threading is an abomination.

"If you want to fork a thread, just change the subject!" This idea is so brain-dead and antithetical to deep mailing list conversations.

"Oops too many people replied, guess gmail'll fork the thread without changing the subject"

My disdain for this misfeature is palpable.
by d3Xt3r | 2025-07-01 07:22:49+00:00
Good to see Chimera getting some coverage here!

Although I wish the author commented about the experiences around the unique (administrative) bits of Chimera itself, such as:

- What's the package manager like, and how does it compare to say, pacman (especially in terms of update speeds and dependency handling)?

- What's it like working with dinit as opposed to systemd? Any annoyances, any compatibility issues with packages that expect systemd?

- Similarly, what's it like working with the FreeBSD userland, as opposed to GNU? Any script breakages due to differences in the switches? Because virtually every other distro ships with GNU coreutils, I would expect a decent chunk of popular scripts to fail on Chimera, if they weren't writen with BSD in mind. This is currently my biggest concern with Chimera. I also wonder if I can replace the BSD utils with the Rust uutils and without breaking things...
by fab_space | 2025-07-01 07:23:00+00:00
certmate dev here :)

I came from a decade of certificate management in multiple work contexts and YES, all the people refer to them as SSL and not TLS, while TLS 1.2 is the minimum de facto standard nowadays.

The point of certmate is to have a simple url like https://certmate/domain/tls to grab a valid cert from wherever I am, any time. This because I focused on DNS challenge only.

A good feat btw is the deploymenet check, where the app verify if the cert issued is the same deployed on public FQDN.

Of course some more interesting additional features will be added soon like:

- multiple cloud accounts support - deploy to remote nodes - vault integration/support

Enjoy and contribute!
by johannes1234321 | 2025-07-01 07:23:53+00:00
Having the option is fine.

But showing me bad English translations of video titles from my native language without option to disable is stupid.

Defaulting to auto dubbed videos for a language I speak and having to hit that small button each time is annoying.

It's cool for some stuff, when I don't speak the language, and where the content is valuable, but it has to be an option.

(Also, I for one pay for YouTube premium)
by goku12 | 2025-07-01 07:24:03+00:00
It's the other way around. The app devs select the nominal price and offer it on platforms that don't take the massive cut - on their website, for example. And when Apple forces them to give up 30% of their revenue, they instead raise the price and pass the extra cost to the consumers.

That is bad enough. But here comes the infuriating part. Many app devs don't want their customers to pay extra. But Apple forbids them from providing an alternative payment interface or even informing the customers that such an option exists. And the icing on the cake is that Apple used to forbid the app developers from even providing an alternative, until the courts forced their hand. Is this an anticompetitive practice or just plain extortion?

But if you ask Apple or their fanbase, they would say that it takes resources to review and host the apps. But that rings hollow when you consider all the other ways in which Apple wrings both app developers and customers dry. Then perhaps allow the users to sideload the apps? Oh no! That will break Apple's perfect safety record. How about just making it slightly hard instead? No! The user must be protected at all costs, including by holding them hostage! At this point, I'm convinced that either Apple is astroturfing, or the fans suffer from an extreme form of Stockholm syndrome, or both.
by raxxorraxor | 2025-07-01 07:24:18+00:00
Why would you need a user identifier to block a consent banner? You don't technically. The website requires it because it is a shitty website.

It would be enough to have your browser store a cookie without personal information with { cookieconsent: "STFU" } or some variable in local storage. If the website respected that, we would be fine.

Personal identifiers are not needed and foul compromises aren't acceptable.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-07-01 07:24:56+00:00
>Sounds like he was neuro divergent and his wife made him keep his obsession in the basement.

Men do noting but chill: "They're losers, incels, etc".

Men have cool hobbies that don't bother anyone: "They're neurodivergent".

Men just can't catch a break these days.
by dustincoates | 2025-07-01 07:24:59+00:00
Some offices are better than other when it comes up AC. My last regular office would turn the AC off for the entire floor if any windows were open. But then the meeting rooms would get stuffy, and people would open windows, so there effectively was no AC.

The best place to go during weather like this is actually a grocery store: Picard, which only sells frozen food and so you get the escaped chill from the freezers.
by dep_b | 2025-07-01 07:26:08+00:00
We have Cursor, it’s a step back from using Claude + MCP and it hallucinates a lot because of poor context management. But that’s not the real reason I’m using LLM’s less than before.

* The codebase consists of many modules with their own repo each

* The test back end has a lot of gotchas, borked settings or broken ongoing work by the back-end team

* The code is incredibly layered

I’m spending up to 10% of my time writing actual code. The rest is overhead like multi-repo PR’s, debugging, talking to people etcetera.

Once I found the issue, the code is the easy part and explaining it all to the LLM is more work.

Assistive coding tools need to get a lot better
by self_awareness | 2025-07-01 07:26:43+00:00
Not forced, but strongly encouraged. Even security guidelines that we had been required to follow for the previous 10 years are being thrown out the window to make way for the AI train.

I've already communicated that I don't want to see nor hear the "but AI generated it this way" opinions. But other than that, I can see the potential, and I'm using it as well. Just not for generation of production code, rather to test assumptions, maybe initial implementations, to make things faster, but in the end I'm always reimplementing it anyway.

Also, to be completely honest, AI does better code reviews than most of my coworkers.
by pfp | 2025-07-01 07:27:46+00:00
At least in my 2.5 person devops team, no.

Also I can't imagine how being handed a bunch of autogenerated terraform and ansible code would help me. Maybe 10% of my time is spent actually writing the code, the rest is running it (ansible is slow), troubleshooting incidents, discussing how to solve them & how to implement new stuff, etc.

If someone works in a devops position where AI is more of a threat, I'd like to hear more about it.
by pickledoyster | 2025-07-01 07:28:20+00:00
> Or it's just as dumb as this was on some product managers "designed and implemented" line to get promoted?

I'd suspect it's something banal, such as: $goal --> translate by default --> enough users click through by mistake (AB test shows user interest) --> more preroll ads shown to users (AB test shows business value) --> promotion

Whether the $goal was {accessibility, show off translations, UX improvement} is quite irrelevant for a business that optimizes for revenue from ads.
by chongli | 2025-07-01 07:30:50+00:00
One of my favourite examples of games that are hard to train an AI on is The Legend of Zelda for NES. Many other games of the NES era have (at least in the short term) a goal function which almost perfectly corresponds to some simple memory value such as score or x-position.

Not Zelda. That game is highly nonlinear and its measurable goals (triforce pieces) are long-term objectives that take a lot of gameplay to obtain. As far as I’m aware, no AI has been able to make even modest progress without any prior knowledge of the game itself.

Yet many humans can successfully play and complete the first dungeon without any outside help. While completing the full game is a challenge that takes dedication, many people achieved it long before having access to the internet and its spoiler resources.

So why is this? Why are humans so much better at Zelda than AIs? I believe that transfer knowledge has a lot to do with it. For starters, Link is approximately human (technically Hylian, but they are considered a race of humans, not a separate species) which means his method of sensing and interacting with his world will be instantly familiar to humans. He’s not at all like an earthworm or an insect in that regard.

Secondly, many of the objects Link interacts with are familiar to most modern humans today: swords, shields, keys, arrows, money, bombs, boomerangs, a ladder, a raft, a letter, a bottle of medicine, etc. Since these objects in-game have real world analogues, players will already understand their function without having to figure it out. Even the triforce itself functions similarly to a jigsaw puzzle, making it obvious what the player’s final objective should be. Furthermore, many players would be familiar with the tropes of heroic myths from many cultures which the Zelda plot closely adheres to (undertake a quest of personal growth, defeat the nemesis, rescue the princess).

All of this cultural knowledge is something we take for granted when we sit down to play Zelda for the first time. We’re able to transfer it to the game without any effort whatsoever, something I have yet to witness an AI achieve (train an AI on a general cultural corpus containing all of the background cultural information above and get it to transfer that knowledge into gameplay as effectively as an unspoiled Zelda beginner).

As for the Fourier transform, I don’t know. I do know that the Legend of Zelda has been successfully completed while playing entirely blindfolded. Of course, this wasn’t with Fourier transformed sound, though since the blindfolded run relies on sound cues I imagine a player could adjust to the Fourier transformed sound effects.
by gritzko | 2025-07-01 07:30:58+00:00
Prolly Trees are Merkle-fied B-trees, essentially.

I am working on related things[r], using Merkle-fied LSM trees. Ink&Switch do things that very closely resemble Merklefied LSM[h], although they are not exactly LSM. I would not be surprised if someone else is doing something similar in parallel. The tricks are very similar to Prollies, but LSM instead of B-trees.

That reminds me my younger years when I "invented" the Causal Tree[c] data structure. It was later reinvented as RGA (Replicated Growable Array [a]), Timestamped Insertion Tree and, I believe, YATA. All seem to be variations of a very very old revision control data structure named "weave"[w].

Recently I improved CT to the degree that warranted a new algorithm name (DISCONT [d]). Fundamentally the same, but much cheaper. Probably, we should see all these "inventions" as improvements. All the Computer Science basics seem to have been invented in the 70s, 80s the latest.

[w]: https://docs.rs/weave/latest/weave/

[r]: https://github.com/gritzko/librdx

[d]: https://github.com/gritzko/go-rdx/blob/main/DISCOUNT.md

[h]: https://www.inkandswitch.com/keyhive/notebook/05/

[c]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1832772.1832777

[a]: https://pages.lip6.fr/Marc.Shapiro/papers/RR-7687.pdf links to the authors of RGA
by reify | 2025-07-01 07:31:41+00:00
same old chestnut

The ability to conceptualize objects in nature has long been regarded as the core of human intelligence

looks lke ai can tell the difference beween a cat and a dog

Im sure it can

feed it 50 million pictures of dogs and code it to recognise a dog, then feed it 50 million pictures of cats and code it to recognise a cat.

Genius. pure intelligence.

My 14 year old niece just cane up with that.

she's turning into an ai sceptic
by Tarsul | 2025-07-01 07:33:54+00:00
Sometimes when I play a point n click adventure and I am stuck for hours on a puzzle I tend to think: I've tried everything... surely there must be some kind of bug for why I am not proceeding.

Only to then realize (after reading the walkthrough) that there was indeed a way.

I think it's human nature to find (rather search) blame not only in yourself but everywhere else... anyhow, since the author is reflective we should be forgiving as well.
by c12 | 2025-07-01 07:34:42+00:00
Not forced but the tooling has been made available to those who ask. Work have provided Microsoft Copilot through Teams and Github Copilot through my IDE of choice.

I found the Microsoft Copilot to be reasonably good when given a complete context with extremely limited scope such as being provided a WSDL for a SOAP service and asked to write functions that make calls and then writing unit tests for the whole thing. This had a right way and a wrong way of doing things and it did it almost perfectly.

However, if you give it any problem that requires imagination with n+1 ways of being done it flounders and produces mostly garbage.

Compared to the Microsoft Copilot I found the Github Copilot to feel lobotomised! It failed on the aforementioned WSDL task and where Microsoft's could be asked "what inconsistencies can you see in this WSDL" and catch all of them, Github's was unable to answer beyond pointing out a spelling mistake I had already made it aware of.

I have personally tinkered with Claude, and its quite impressive.

My colleagues have had similar experiences, with some uninstalling the AI tooling out of frustration at how "useless" it is. Others, like myself, have begun using it for the grunt work; mostly as "inteligent boilerplate generator."
by bruce511 | 2025-07-01 07:34:42+00:00
As one using tech mostly laid down in the last millennium, I also smiled at this.

But I think what the poster meant was that the AI is not always "up to date". So if my C compiler is a 2025 version, and my code makes use of features added since 2022, then the AI can "retrogress" the code simply because it isn't aware of the new.

Or another example, imagine when JavaScript Promises were new. There's a lot more examples of "not using promises" than "using promises ". So the AI us likely to use the old pattern.

If you're doing "up to the minute " code because you put the effort in to keep abreast of new stuff, then this retrograde will seem, well, frustrating.
by CJefferson | 2025-07-01 07:34:57+00:00
I feel this is going to be the thing which really boosts automated theory proving.

Up until now it's always been a hard sell, people say "Well, I can prove it myself, and that's less work than getting the computer to prove it", and they weren't completely wrong.

However, now we have LLMs which can do lots of interesting work, but really can't be trusted for anything important (like an LLVM optimisation pass, for example). If those LLMs can convince a theorem prover the LLVM optimisation pass is correct, then suddenly their output is much more useful.
by isaachinman | 2025-07-01 07:35:21+00:00
I think you're conflating Electron apps with hybrid apps. Electron literally bundles Chrome and NodeJs, resulting in apps that are 300mb+. The Marco macOS app is 3mb.

Yes, we have a server runtime between the client app and the upstream IMAP provider. As does Superhuman, Missive, and any other product that actually provides push notifications. For users that see this as a non-starter, we enthusiastically recommend local-only clients – Thunderbird, Talanoa, etc.

The waitlist is not marketing. We are in alpha right now and are genuinely not ready for GA. As soon as we are, the waitlist will disappear.

No, I do not live in the bay area, or even the US.

You may consider toning down the negativity in the future.
by monodeldiablo | 2025-07-01 07:35:46+00:00
This is just repackaged cognitive or dialectical behavioral therapy, with cutesy names like "whisper" and "virtue garnish" to make it seem novel. But if it speaks to people, I see no harm in that.

If you're genuinely interested in changing your habits, I recommend investigating these therapies, as they're backed by decades of research and results.

And if you want to tune in to these "whispers" in the first place, there's really no substitute for meditation and mindfulness practice.
by Zanfa | 2025-07-01 07:36:33+00:00
> In the game example having the weights optimized for game A doesn't help with game B. It would be interesting to see if training for both game A and B help it understand concepts in both.

Supposedly it does both A and B worse. That's their problem statement essentially. Current SOTA models don't behave like humans would. If you took a human that's really good at A and B, chances are they're gonna pick up C much quicker than a random person off the street that hasn't even seen Atari before. With SOTA models, the random "person" does better at C than the A/B master.
by eru | 2025-07-01 07:36:53+00:00
Oh, I wasn't talking about free will. I was talking about 'superdeterminism'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Superdeterminism requires crazy 'conspiracy theories' to work.

Btw, I think determinism and free will are compatible. At least for some definitions of free will.
by daft_pink | 2025-07-01 07:37:41+00:00
The unfortunate reality is that this doesn't effectively address the issue of providers who offer services but might employ questionable tactics, such as splitting a $250 cash-priced genetic test during pregnancy into a $5,000 insurance claim and a $1,000 coinsurance bill for the patient. When we reported nonsense like this the insurance company doesn’t seem to care at all.
Building a LofiATC alternative and need some input from others
by bitlatte | 2025-07-01 07:37:57+00:00
I'm working on an app that will take the place of lofiatc.com since it no longer works. Just trying to get a feel for how others think you should interact with it.

I'd like to make it easy to discover airports. I've been playing around with tables, grids of "airport cards", even manually typing ICAO codes, nothing really feels right. I'm open to ideas. Still in the early stages at the moment so there's not much pressure in finding the perfect solution right now.

Also, I'm going to open source the project once it's in a more "steady" state. If you're interested in the project keep an eye out on github.com/Bitlatte
by gitaarik | 2025-07-01 07:38:24+00:00
Seems logical to me. 1 = break the current level, 2 = break 1 level up, 3 = break 2 levels up, etc.

If you would do it the other way around, and then if you would add another for loop around the others, the breaks will break. You wouldn't expect that if you're modifying this code without looking at the current breaks or knowing about the break behavior.

If you however move the break statements inside a new for loop, at the most inner level, it would seem obvious that you have to update the break numbers.
by qaq | 2025-07-01 07:38:36+00:00
The “every website must scale like Facebook” mindset is premature optimization driven by hypothetical future needs exactly what YAGNI advises against. But in your case, you’re investing time upfront to avoid a heavier dependency that already works and has no clear downside for the majority of users.

If you don’t actually need ultra-small binaries or sub-200ms compile times, then replacing Clap just in case seems like a textbook case of violating YAGNI rather than applying it.
by rTX5CMRXIfFG | 2025-07-01 07:39:18+00:00
Oh devs would absolutely avoid distributing through the App Store if they want to run any code that would fail App Store Review, such as the abuse of private low-level APIs to gather more user data than the app needs, which all businesses have a profit incentive to do.

There are many other possible scenarios: devs forcing users to authenticate with unsecure methods, gather and unsecurely store credit card information, gather passwords, upload contacts, read SMSes, etc. The value that a third-party dev can derive from private user info is far greater than alternately offering a different version of the app that will pass App Store reviews.
by randomtoast | 2025-07-01 07:39:33+00:00
Cause of Death:

Langley Collyer (born October 3, 1885 - died c. March 9, 1947): Langley died first. He was crushed by one of his own booby traps - a makeshift tunnel of newspapers and debris - while attempting to bring food to his paralyzed brother Homer. Langley was buried under a massive pile of junk and his body was not discovered until April 8, 1947, weeks after his death, due to the concealment caused by the debris.

Homer Collyer (born November 6, 1881 - died March 21, 1947): Homer, who was blind and crippled, died alone of starvation and dehydration sometime after Langley’s death. Without his brother to care for him, he perished in the same house. His body was found seated in a decaying chair amidst the filth and clutter.
by edanm | 2025-07-01 07:39:50+00:00
> An axiomatic system can be consistent, but wrong.

But then its unsound, isn't it? Isn't our background assumption that ZFC is consistent and sound? It can't prove its own consistency, but we are assuming that under standard models, it is sound.

> For example, if ZFC is consistent, then T = ZFC+~Con(ZFC) would be consistent as well.

It would be consistent if ZFC didn't also prove ZFC+Con(ZFC), but then it would indeed be unsound.

> Similarly, if ZFC is indeed consistent, then T is wrong about which Turing machines halt. Therefore it would have a wrong value of BB(748) (and many other BB(n)).

No, if it's sound, it just doesn't have a proof of the form "BB(748)=K" for any K.

> However, since ZFC can't prove its own consistency, it can't prove that value is wrong. That's why there are different values of BB(748). Those values are not necessarily equally correct, it's just that ZFC isn't strong enough to prove which one is wrong.

No, ZFC is just not strong enough to prove any of these.
by pbhjpbhj | 2025-07-01 07:41:00+00:00
Your post is on a new account and the style is indirect and presumptuous. It says little more than 'I think ML tools are great'; it just does it in a way designed to annoy people. That would be my guess as to why it was downvoted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.