MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Tade0 | 2025-07-04 11:13:56+00:00
Being employed in four companies is obviously not sustainable, but half of that is fairly common.

I know several people who spent months working for two companies: one full time, the other part time. The most productive few would reach two full time positions and actually keep delivering for over a year.

The reason this happens at all is that sufficiently large organisations expect performance to be in a specific range - if it's too low you'll be fired, but going the extra mile will not yield benefits, as your compensation is decided by the assigned budget and promotions are rare.

Case in point: a few years ago my former co-worker was given "overtime" which was actually a hidden raise, as management really wanted to keep him, but couldn't officially increase his compensation. The organisation for which we worked eventually cracked down on such practices, so he left to work at a place which would compensate him this much and more without resorting to such tricks.
by ffsm8 | 2025-07-04 11:14:01+00:00
I entered the tech industry with an ops role, which is why I had - from the perspective of most devs - a lot of experience with the kind of issues k8s solves.

In this context, your responses are very puzzling. I don't disagree with the core of your opinion - there are languages around that solve the issue of sourcing your language specific dependencies a lot better for it's ecosystem then docker ever could.

Some languages, such as erlang/elixir also come with highly advanced and stable clustering basically buildin, which solves running your own software on your own hardware in a distributed manner.

However, that's a completely different issue to what docker and k8s solves.

From devops centered enterprise: K8s basically replaced over provisioned hypervisors running countless VMs with running services in namespaces, no longer needing to over-commit RAM to multiple machines.

And Docker replaced the VMs we were building before that with OCI.

In a less advanced enterprise, OCI replaced the dreaded "patchday" update process with a unified deployment pipeline that simply rebuild the image every so often, giving you high confidence that the deployment will encounter less adhoc issues then youd have to solve before.

I'm saying this as from the perspective of a not particularly enthusiastic user of k8s.

I would suggest everyone to first just run single node with high availability fail over if necessary... But once you're signing SLA with high availability guarantees, deploying hundreds of services per day: doing anything but k8s is a bad idea. You're not doing that with the built-in tooling of e.g. Erlang/elixir either, because you're still missing all the other parts of your infrastructure.
Show HN: We built an AI-agent with a state machine instead of a giant prompt
by chandralegend | 2025-07-04 11:15:04+00:00
Hi HN,

Last year we tried to bring an LLM “agent” into a real enterprise workflow. It looked easy in the demo videos. In production it was… chaos.

• Tiny wording tweaks = totally different behaviour • Impossible to unit-test; every run was a new adventure • One mega-prompt meant one engineer could break the whole thing • SOC-2 reviewers hated the “no traceability” story

We wanted the predictability of a backend service and the flexibility of an LLM. So we built NOMOS: a step-based state-machine engine that wraps any LLM (OpenAI, Claude, local). Each state is explicit, testable, and independently ownable—think Git-friendly diff-able YAML.

Open-source core (MIT), today. • GitHub: https://github.com/dowhile/nomos • Documentation: https://nomos.dowhile.dev

Looking ahead: we’re also prototyping Kosmos, a “Vercel for AI agents” that can deploy NOMOS or other frameworks behind a single control plane. If that sounds useful, Join the waitlist for free paid membership for limited amount of people.

https://nomos.dowhile.dev/kosmos

Would love war stories from anyone who’s wrestled with flaky prompt agents. What hurt the most?
by dsego | 2025-07-04 11:15:17+00:00
I've had good experience with linux on thinkpads. Booted kubuntu on a framework 13 recently, connected to wifi, all good. Ultimately, if you choose well supported hardware with good drivers, it should work fine, even better than windows. One should be picky about which laptop to buy, avoid broadcom wifi chips, avoid screen resolutions that require fractional scaling, etc.
by derbOac | 2025-07-04 11:15:41+00:00
> "I unapologetically think people who use phrases like “un-American” are dumb as rocks, but if anything seems un-American, it’s that."

I agree but have come to realize it's a rhetorical or reasoning strategy. When you criticize something as "un-American" (or un-German, or un-British, or un-Chinese, or whatever), you are dismissing the thing without having to reckon with it, and by extension, dismissing the person behind it as not worth considering. It's a way of avoiding defense of beliefs or schemas, or to avoid accomodating something other than what you want, and by extension the people challenging your egocentrism, a kind of pseudojustification.

You can't say "I don't want to defend my beliefs against this reasonable argument because I'm an intellectual coward or lazy", so you say it's un-Whatever as a way of making it seem like you're arguing against it on moral grounds. Similarly, you can't say "I don't want to bother with the human rights of these people" so you make a pseudomoral appeal that these individuals' very existence is a kind of moral offense, the offense being that they are not part of the group.

Is it dumb? Maybe, but it's also selfish.
by krisoft | 2025-07-04 11:15:57+00:00
> in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself.

Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.

You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.

I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.

We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.

My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".
by bsenftner | 2025-07-04 11:16:06+00:00
There is at least three major art markets: 1) pretty pictures to fill in a void (empty walls, dress up an article...), 2) prestige purchases for those trying to fill that void in their imposter syndrome, and 3) fellow artists who are really philosophers working beyond language. The whole reason art is evaluated with vague notions like taste, context, history and so on is because the work of artists left their audience's understanding several generations ago, but they still need to make a living, so these proxies are used so the general public does not feel left out. Serious art is leading edge philosophy operating in a medium beyond language, and for what it's worth AI will never be there, just like the majority of people.
by liampulles | 2025-07-04 11:16:13+00:00
The key point some people are missing here is that removing noise from a video before compression makes it more compressible. So if you compare a video compressed without denoising/degrading at bitrate X to a video that was filtered and then compressed at bitrate X with "fake noise" added later, then the latter will have edges and details that the former doesn't.

The principle of post-processing videos to add noise or sharpening is something that desktop media players have supported for years, some are even reasonably good at it.
by zhyd1997_ | 2025-07-04 11:16:24+00:00
Location: Shanghai/Singapore

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Languages & Databases • JavaScript, TypeScript, Java, Golang • PostgreSQL, MongoDB

Frameworks & Libraries • React.js, Next.js, Express.js, Koa.js • MUI, Tailwind CSS, CSS-in-JS • TanStack Query, Redux, Prisma, Supabase • Highcharts, ECharts, AG Grid • Jest, Cypress DevOps & Tools • Docker, Git, GitHub Actions, CircleCI • Datadog, Sentry

Workflow Tools • WebStorm, Figma, CleanShot X • Slack, Jira, Linear, Productive

Other • Progressive Web Apps (PWA) • npm, Yarn, pnpm

Resume/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yadong-zhang-48a474154/

Website: https://zhyd1997.dev

Email:zhyd007 [at] gmail <dot> com
by fc417fc802 | 2025-07-04 11:16:28+00:00
Lossless is lossless. But I shudder to imagine the file size of a 2 hour 13 channel 192/24 flac soundtrack.

However I notice a critical oversight on your part. You have assumed a channel depth of merely 8 bits when the minimum for a decent workflow is 12. Thus rather than 3.9 TiB (ie 4.3 TB) we arrive at 5.9 TiB.

Of course a modern feature length film is likely closer to 2.5 hours (7.3 TiB). Lossless HEVC should get that down closer to 2.5 TiB. At approximately 290 MiB per second that's going to demand dropping an SSD in the mail as the only practical method of distribution and playback.
by amelius | 2025-07-04 11:16:57+00:00
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/06/orca-kil...

> Orcas kill for sport. They push, drag, and spin around live prey, including sea turtles, seabirds, and sea lions. Some go so far as to risk beaching themselves in order to snag a baby seal—not to consume, but simply to torture it to death.

We might as well call them the assholes of the sea.
by nevon | 2025-07-04 11:17:02+00:00
A mistake I see commonly whenever someone says to "just move off of the cloud" is that they see the cloud as just a VM provider. If it was, then yeah, moving to another provider wouldn't be such a big deal.

In reality, the cloud creeps into your systems in all sorts of ways. Your permissions use cloud identities, your firewalls are based on security group referencing, your cross-region connectivity relies on cloud networking products, you're managing secrets and secret rotation using cloud secrets management, your observability is based on cloud metrics, your partners have whitelisted static ip ranges that belong to the cloud provider, your database upgrades are automated by the cloud provider, your VM images are built specifically for your cloud provider, your auditing is based on the cloud provider's logs, half the items in your security compliance audit reference things that are solved by your cloud provider, your applications are running on a container scheduler managed by your cloud provider, your serverless systems are strongly coupled distributed monoliths dependent on events on cloud specific event buses, your disaster recovery plans depend on your cloud provider's backup or region failover capabilities, etc. Not to mention that when you have several hundred systems, you're not going to be moving them all at the same time. They still need to be able to communicate during the transition period (extra fun when your service-to-service authentication is dependent on your cloud) without any downtime.

It's not just a matter of dropping a server binary onto a VM from a different provider. If I think about how long it would take my org to move fully off of _a_ cloud (just to a different cloud with somewhat similar capabilities), 3 years doesn't sound unrealistic.
by adrian_b | 2025-07-04 11:17:13+00:00
There is the alternative to call them orcas, which I prefer and which is also a much older name for them, being already used by Pliny the Elder, two millennia ago.

It would have been simpler if the word "whale" would have been applied only to baleen whales, but unfortunately in the Old English tradition the word "whale" was used for any big marine animal, e.g. not only for sperm whales, but even for walruses.
by gus_massa | 2025-07-04 11:17:48+00:00
Just to confirm, Does "Pg C yr⁻¹" mean "Peta grams Carbon per Year"?

It's the mass of only "C" or the mass of "CO2"? (There is like a x3 difference, 12 vs 44. Probably not very relevant, but I'd like to understand the meaning correctly.)
by lloeki | 2025-07-04 11:18:14+00:00
> You try drawing a picture, and it sucks. You try playing the guitar, and you can't even get simple notes right.

> up until now, you had no choice and to keep making crappy pictures and playing crappy songs until you actually start to develop a taste for the effort, and a few years later you find yourself actually pretty darn competent at the thing. That's a pretty virtuous cycle.

https://www.deviantart.com/scotchi/art/keep-tryin-690533685

Exactly.

Only putting the work is going to get anyone places. And yes it takes _time_, like, tons, and there's no shortcut.

And I can explain in excruciating detail how to do an ollie or a kickflip even and from a physics point of view you would totally get it but to land the damn thing you simply have to put a shitload of time on the board and fail over and over and over again.

We come from a place where we've been trained as engineers or whatever to do this or that and - somewhat - critically think about things. Instead picture yourself in the shoes of a beginner: how would you, a beginner who has not built their own mental model of discipline $foo, even begin to be critical of AI output?

But we're being advertised magic powder and sweating overalls and whathaveyou that makes you lose weight a) instantly† and b) without going to the gym and well putting in the effort††.

LLMs are the speed diet of the mind.

† comparatively

†† not that putting any arbitrary amount of effort is going to get you places, there _is_ a thing such as wasteful effort; but NOT putting the effort is a solid guarantee that you won't.
by Eikon | 2025-07-04 11:18:46+00:00
This is not a strong take, the "fix" doesn't completely fixes the vulnerability. Passwords or private keys are not the same as a user-provided crypto-seed without checksums. This is supposed to be critical PKI software.

It's about corruption and bit rot, not about seed length. This is a project of a ex-google employee, used in chromium, that google publicly endorses; that's definitely akin to a "google project".
Show HN: I'll build your billing stack in 24 hours – ping me
by vijay_gorfad | 2025-07-04 11:18:48+00:00
Hi HN,

I’m Vijay (founder @ RevMax AI) — we’re building a “Revenue OS” for AI agent startups. I’ve spent the past year working on flexible billing infrastructure and want to battle-test our new SDK in the real world.

What I’m offering (totally free, no catch):

I’ll build a complete billing flow for your product in the next 24 hours:

Event metering → pricing logic → Stripe (or your gateway) invoicing

Basic cost + margin dashboard

Sample tests + clean README for easy handoff

Node/TypeScript or Python (your call), PostgreSQL, Stripe Connect by default

All code is yours — open-sourced under MIT if helpful to others.

Why I’m doing this:

Real-world > sandbox tests

Want to prove how fast + flexible billing should be

If it works for you, awesome. If not, I learn.

How to get picked:

Comment here or email me: vijay [at] userevmax.com with:

What your product does

One pricing/billing edge case you're stuck on

I’ll post progress + a retro tomorrow.
by blackbear_ | 2025-07-04 11:19:20+00:00
Maybe controversial, but if you already know how to program then doing a small project with a LLM is the fastest and most efficient way. Ask it to implement something, then go read the documentation to understand what is going on. After you got the hang of it, try to implement something yourself and ask the LLM to rewrite it in an idiomatic way.

This worked for me after several failed attempts at learning Clojure in the pre-LLM era, when I had to spend ten minutes googling for things for every minute of actual coding. It's a fantastic way to quickly get a hold of the most common library functions and patterns.

And for those who say that LLMs aren't perfect or can't be trusted: who cares. At this stage just focus on being able to stand on your own, only then work on perfecting the craft.
by j0rd72 | 2025-07-04 11:20:18+00:00
A rule of thumb I've been following lately (when communicating in e.g. GH issues or Slack messages), is to use the title of the page where possible. Hopefully, the page title should reflect the page's content, and thus automatically works as a link title a lot of the time.

In your example, I would expect the download page of Amaya to be titled "Download Amaya", so my link can simply be "If you are interested, [Download Amaya]!"
by franciscop | 2025-07-04 11:20:33+00:00
Because at the beginning I didn't trust it and verified it in many different ways. I've got a fairly decent understanding of what LLMs hallucinate regarding language learning and levels, and luckily/unluckily I'm far enough for this to be a concern. e.g. I asked recently differences between 回答 vs 解答 and it was pretty good.

I also checked with some Japanese and my own notes contain more errors than the LLMs output by a large margin.
by Eikon | 2025-07-04 11:21:14+00:00
This is not a strong take, the "fix" doesn't completely fixes the vulnerability. Passwords or private keys are not the same as a user-provided crypto-seed without checksums. This is supposed to be critical PKI software.

It's about corruption and bit rot, not about seed length.

My finding are unrelated and started from when I wanted to benchmark his software. I wanted to know which format it expected for the seed, turns out spaces will do.

It's not about a "corrupted password", it's about that the software generates private keys on the fly based on an unverified seed input. Anyone understanding crypto a tiny bit gets that. This is first-week-of-crypto-class material

Btw, this is a project of a ex-google employee, used in chromium, that google publicly endorses; that's definitely akin to a "google project". Is it damage control yet?

Pretty interesting that you are directly involved in this project yourself but feel the need to defend the same (wrong) narrative here.

You agreeing with the claim that this is not a vulnerability, and somehow being involved in developing CT software is deeply concerning.
by hopelite | 2025-07-04 11:21:16+00:00
I have yet to hear a convincing case for why what the LLM vendors did/do is different than what humans do to learn and become proficient in producing their own work.

Do you owe everyone you have ever read a royalty for influencing your writing style or voice? How about for all the other things you have leaned and become competent in?

There is a bigger issue here that is related to what humanity actually is and how we have been abused for many decades and several generations now, to the point that the abused generations have become the abusers of future generations simply because they are mentally trapped, addicted even.

A good uncontroversial example of this may be the excessive and deficit spending of governments, all based on what otherwise would be considered loan fraud, which is called national debt. It is used to keep perpetuating this system we call an economy because it has been so “successful” over ~100 years of “line go up”, solely because everyone wants the gravy train of reckless good times to continue forever.

Unfortunately for some generation of the future (maybe even our own), it simply cannot go on forever, so it won’t, because it is by definition unsustainable. But the goods times and “success” everyone sees everyone else having, keeps people from stopping the insane and utterly suicidal process of not only consistent, but accelerating addiction to every greater deficit and debt loan frauds called the national debt. It isn’t “Trumps fault” it “Biden’s fault”, or any other totem that can excuse or own actions. These are forces we don’t even understand any more than we are blindly changing at breakneck speeds. And if anyone tells you they understand these forces they are simply lying, when we cannot even understand the most basic concept of the fact that there is no alternative to this planet… as we destroy its ecosystem that produced us at ever accelerating speeds, in millions of different ways.

It’s quite similar if not the same as any other process we call addiction; we know it will cause ruin, yet we cannot extract ourselves from the endorphins, so we just keep lying to ourselves.
by skydhash | 2025-07-04 11:21:22+00:00
And again, the most convoluted setup for development with an example that fails to demonstrate why you should adopt such practice. It’s like doing a GDB demo with an hello world program. Or doing Linux From Scratch to show how you can browse the web.

The goal of software engineering is not to write code faster. Coding is itself a translation task (and a learning workflow, as you can’t keep everything in your head). What you want is the power of decision, and better decision can be made with better information. There’s nothing in the setup that helps with making decision.

There are roughly six steps in software engineering, done sequentially and iteratively. Requirements gathering to shape the problem, Analysis to understand it, Design to come up with a solution, Coding to implement it, Testing to verify the solution, and Maintenance to keep the solution working. We have methods and tooling that help with each, giving us relevant information based on important parameters that we need to decide upon.

LLMs are example generators. Give it a prompt and it will gives the answer that fits the conversation. It’s an echo chamber powered by a lossy version of the internet. Unlike my linting tool which will show me the error when there’s one and not when I tell it to.

ADDENDUM

It's like an ivory tower filled with yes-men and mirrors that always reply "you're the fairest of them all". My mind is already prone to lie to itself. What I need most is tooling that is not influenced by what I told it, or what others believe in. My browser is not influencing my note taking tool, telling it to note down the first two results it got from google. My editor is not telling the linter to sweep that error under a virtual rug. And QA does not care that I've implemented the most advanced abstraction if the software does not fit the specs.
by scrubs | 2025-07-04 11:21:55+00:00
Well, that's a sentiment I don't quite agree with. It willfully ignores industry experience with c/c++ whence zig, rust, D, and others.

If your micro controller is say <5000 lines maybe ... but an OS or a mellanox verbs or dpdk API won't fall so easily to such surface level thinking.

Maybe zig could help itself by providing through llvm what Google sometimes does for large api breaking changes ... have llvm tool that searches out old api invocation update to new so upgrading is faster, more operationally effective.

Google's tools do this and give the dev a source code pr candidate. That's how they can change zillions of calls with confidence.
by gattr | 2025-07-04 11:22:08+00:00
On a more positive note, LLMs (or their successors) could be used to create a perfect tutor. Taylored for every individual, automatically adjusting learning material difficulty, etc.

But yeah, first we'll go through a few (?) years of the self-defeating "ChatGPT does my homework" and the necessary adjustments of how schools/unis function.
by mathgeek | 2025-07-04 11:23:13+00:00
> an excuse for not getting through the boring parts that lead to long term impact

Personally I don't worry too much about long term impact. It's incredibly hard to actually predict what will have an impact after you're gone, and the world will have forgotten about approximately all of us in a hundred years or so. Instead, I focus on the idea that folks happily engaged in useful work produce useful things.