MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mgkimsal | 2025-07-03 16:51:19+00:00
I've seen it too - not uncommon. A frustrating angle is vendor lockin. You are required to only use the internal IT team for everything, even if they're far more expensive and less skilled. They can 'charge' whatever they want, and you're stuck with their skills, prices and timeline. Going outside of that requires many levels of signoffs/approvals, and untold amounts of time making your case. There's value in having some central purchasing process, but when you limit your vendors to one (internal or external) you'll creating a lot more problems that you don't need to have.
by xpe | 2025-07-03 16:51:32+00:00
From that article:

> On a related note, unlike traditional unit tests, you don’t necessarily need a 100% pass rate. Your pass rate is a product decision, depending on the failures you are willing to tolerate.

Not sure how I feel about this, given expectations, culture, and tooling around CI. This suggestion seems to blur the line between a score from an eval and the usual idea of a unit test.

P.S. It is also useful to track regressions on a per-test basis.
by panarky | 2025-07-03 16:52:04+00:00
The market may or may not be "bonkers" to price MSTR at a premium to the market value of the assets it owns.

But there are other non-bitcoin examples.

Berkshire Hathaway is a corporate wrapper around a bunch of assets that are expected to increase in value over time. Berkshire's market value is much greater than the sum of the market values of the assets it wraps.

You might argue that Berkshire is different because the assets it wraps are productive and produce reliable profits for the holding company, while bitcoin just sits there and doesn't do anything.

I'd suggest that producing profits is the attribute that gives Berkshire's assets value, while bitcoin has other attributes that make it valuable. The difference in the source of value shouldn't matter when asking why the wrapper is worth more than the assets it wraps.

Reasonable minds can differ about the sources of value for the underlying assets, but there are many real-world examples where the wrapper around valuable assets is worth a multiple of the assets themselves, and this premium can persist for decades.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-07-03 16:52:10+00:00
I think the recent post about the Cloudflare engineer who built an OAuth implementation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166, shows otherwise (note the Cloudflare engineer, kentonv, comments a bunch in the discussion). The author, who is clearly an expert, said it took him days to complete what would have taken him weeks or months to write manually.

I love that thread because it clearly shows both the benefits and pitfalls of AI codegen. It saved this expert a ton of time, but the AI also created a bunch of "game over" bugs that a more junior engineer probably would have checked in without a second thought.
by rozab | 2025-07-03 16:52:22+00:00
Meanwhile in the pro-Palestine movement, the BBC is seen as being so pro-Israel some people think their editors should be prosecuted[1]! (for what, I am unclear on)

112 BBC journalists recently signed an open letter accusing the BBC of pro-Israel bias[2].

Domestically, every single political movement feels the BBC is biased against them. Their dry reporting style is at odds with what many, especially Americans, are used to. Unlike the author of that blogpost I do not really have a problem with them not using the word 'genocide' but I do take issue with some of their selective reporting (of course, every outlet must make a selection and everyone will have a problem with it). For example, Israeli newpaper Haaretz has been doing a lot of reporting on IDF soldiers being ordered to fire on crowds of unarmed civilians at aid sites[3]. The BBC does acknowledge it, but it's buried behind a headline about the IDF starting an investigation[4]. They do this because they always prefer quotes from official sources to eyewitness stuff.

[1]: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-06-20/bbc-editors-tr... [2]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n3926pSPNwXd8j7I716CBJEz... [3]: https://archive.is/pQw3k [4]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9vveg0vp9o
by hermitcrab | 2025-07-03 16:52:42+00:00
>If a ship sinks in rough waters the owner gets reimbursed by the insurance company, nobody makes snarky comments about how ship owners are being "bailed out".

The ship owner paid the insurance company a premium.

It isn't clear to me that banks are doing anything comparable. They are paying some tax, but so is every business.

For a bank the calculation seems to be heads I win (trebles and massive bonuses all round) tails you (the tax payer) lose. Given this situation, from a game theory point of view, why wouldn't they take reckless risks, if the regulations allow them to?
by codekansas | 2025-07-03 16:52:48+00:00
I'm not convinced that 5 finger hands are necessary right now, but there is a really long tail of hand suppliers that we've been exploring to help get the price down.

I think at volume the price for a good set of hands should settle somewhere around $300-500. Most of it comes down to meeting suppliers where they're at and negotiating mutually beneficial deals. It's not magic but it does require having a good understanding of the hardware in order to negotiate well.
Ask HN: How do you keep voice AI latency low while load spikes?
by didro | 2025-07-03 16:53:10+00:00
Hey guys,

I'm doing a research and have a question. What do you do when traffic to voice AI agents spikes? As far as I know, native autoscaler of Kubernetes (HPA) doesn't catch up quite often with that - resulting into a prohibitively high latency. Would be glad to know your experience if you don't mind.

Thanks!
Ask HN: How do I prevent execs from obsessing over copy-protection?
by bad_boomerang | 2025-07-03 16:53:10+00:00
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I've just begun a short term dev contract and I'm noticing a bit of a bump ahead that I worry might impede our ability to deliver the product.

The org sells to a very niche luxury market and distributes a native application at a high price. The execs at this company are extremely perturbed by the appearance of cracks of the software that appear sometime after every release. The issue is that our present architecture as a native application means the attacker already has root and we cannot protect any key, there are also domain specific reasons why some users will always need to be remote at some point. While I want to encourage the org to eventually move to a client-server architecture we could protect, the need to provide the remote copies means all we can do is create puzzle boxes via security by obscurity, that are cheaper to unlock for an attacker (in terms of their likely hourly rate) than for us to create.

I believe they are over-reacting to the emergence of these cracks by pushing the dev team to introduce more checks into the software and thereby harming productivity and potentially even stability of the software while also failing to solve the issue. To give you an example of my fear; I was talking to one of our devs recently about a dependency issue where some extra license checks had been baked into the UI and I was encouraging better composition to extract these sorts of checks to a specific layer instead. They replied "but if we put all the license checks in the same place, won't that make it easier to crack?".

I appreciate this is probably a red flag and I should run but I believe myself to be a convincing person and I would like to try. They are a little old-school, so I feel like a gentle approach is necessary. For the most part I am wanting to attempt to reframe the issue from a "tech problem" to a "social problem" and focus less on adding more security by obscurity and more on tracking down where the leaks are coming from where consequences can be enforced via license agreements.

So I appeal to you all to help me with this endeavour. I imagine some of you have been in this sort of situation before, and have experience I could draw from, or might have knowledge of various sources I can use. The one that springs to mind for me is the issues that big online gaming companies have with aim-bots or other cheats in markets where the value of the hack is close to the zero and the resources of the engineering department trying to defend are high; to demonstrate the futility of the approach. However I worry a little, that given the old-schoolness at play that gaming might not be an example they will be receptive to.

Conversely, if anyone has any counterpoints or suggestions about low hanging fruit, outside of simple obfuscation and/or hardware dongles, this would also be appreciated, as it might help if I can also suggest something from their angle that beats the typical curve of severely diminishing returns.
by southernplaces7 | 2025-07-03 16:53:11+00:00
>The progressively worsening attacks on the ability of trans people to exist in daily life.

Really? Care to name an example of their being persecuted legally by the administration in the way you claim? For example, there were multiple huge gay pride parades in the U.S just recently, which are visibly and vocally attended by trans people too, and I didn't see federal agents or police of any kind going at them at any point.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-07-03 16:53:14+00:00
I don’t see a way to avoid population decline, assuming women have freedom and access to 100% effective birth control.

The whole process of pregnancy/birth//breastfeeding/infant rearing sucks, so that most women will opt for 1 or 2, max.

Then you have to account for all the men and women who opt to stay single (or queer or whatever). The number of women that need to have more than 2 kids to offset those with 0 and 1 will never happen.

The only possible mechanism to align incentives is to remove all old age benefits and wealth transfers, so that one likely has to depend on their children. But even then, I doubt it would work.
by zem | 2025-07-03 16:53:17+00:00
> Another area where D could shine is GUIs

I've often thought that, to the extent that I spent a while looking for some active projects I could contribute to, and came up blank. if I do have some new gui based program of my own I want to write I will at least consider d for it, though ocaml is another great language in the same space and I already have some experience with ocaml/gtk. my hope was that d would have more mature gui toolkit bindings and more of a community of people writing apps, which would have been some incentive to switch over from ocaml, I was disappointed to find that wasn't the case.
by basisword | 2025-07-03 16:53:27+00:00
I hate this. For lots of reasons but mainly privacy. If the call is being recorded that's visible for all to see. If some dick is recording my every word with AI I'll never know. It's going to stifle discussions, especially more informal small group ones, and eventually the only solution will be dragging everyone back to the office because clearly people can't be trusted.
by smj-edison | 2025-07-03 16:53:44+00:00
Check the bottom :)

> I did start trying out Cursor towards the end of the development process. I ended up stopping using it though because I felt like it didn’t actually increase my speed. It only saved me from finger pain. That’s because when using cursor to translate the code it would still occasionally insert bugs, just like me. So, I spent as much time reviewing the generated code as it would have taken me to write it myself. The only thing it saved was my hands. Doing this large amount of refactoring is really hard on your fingers.
by noelwelsh | 2025-07-03 16:54:24+00:00
Like you, I'm very much in the role playing is story telling camp. I think the difference is people who, like you and I, want to play in the world, and people who want to play with the world. I.e. they are playing a meta game where they play with the rules to "win". This makes no sense to me, because there is no winning when you play in the world. It's the story you tell that is the point. But I can understand their POV because I do play to win in other domains.
by glozanop | 2025-07-03 16:54:55+00:00
QuAIL Technologies is a quantum artificial intelligence lab and agentic orchestration platform tackling finance’s toughest challenges—from investment uncertainty to volatile economies. Traditional approaches fall short, so we deliver advanced quantum AI solutions for strategy formulation and portfolio optimization. Empowering smarter, faster decisions, we commit to revolutionizing finance with innovative technology that meets complexity head-on for a more prosperous future.

Looking for Users to try out our product and offer feedback
by divy1234 | 2025-07-03 16:54:57+00:00
Hi HN! We built Flywheelr after seeing too many brilliant technical leaders struggle to articulate their expertise publicly, while less qualified people dominate industry conversations.

The problem: Most engineers, CTOs, and technical founders know their stuff but lack the time/skills to consistently create content that builds their reputation. Traditional PR agencies are expensive ($10K+/month) and don't understand technical nuances.

What Flywheelr does: - Ghost-write authentic thought leadership LinkedIn posts and articles - Secure exclusive speaking opportunities on podcasts where top CIOs and CEOs appear - Build thought leadership strategies around your actual expertise - Handle the entire content creation and distribution process

We're invite-only right now because we limit clients to ensure quality. Our writers have technical backgrounds and understand the difference between real insight and marketing fluff.

Pricing is intentionally accessible - fraction of traditional PR agency costs.

Target: Technical leaders who want industry recognition but don't have bandwidth for content creation.

Currently working with CTOs, CIOs, VPs and leaders from IT services companies that lead the IT services space.

The irony: Most HN users could benefit from better thought leadership, but hate traditional marketing. We're trying to solve that.

Thoughts? Have you struggled with building your technical reputation outside your immediate network?
by habinero | 2025-07-03 16:55:25+00:00
My dude, I know multiple white people in LA who are terrified their Hispanic spouses might not come home one day, because masked agents are grabbing people and disappearing them.

The president threatened to deport a legal citizen who won the primary for mayor in NYC. He's tried to send the military after civilians.

He's sued and extracted payment from media companies who said things he didn't like. We do not have a free press.

We're fully as bad as China. I don't know what your criteria for "authoritarian dictatorship" is but it doesn't appear to be reality based.
by quonn | 2025-07-03 16:55:35+00:00
Charging $200/month is economically only possible if there is not a true market for LLMs or some sort of monopoly power. Currently there is no evidence that this will be the case. There are already multiple competitors and the barrier to entry is relatively low (compared to e.g. the car industry or other manufacturing industries), there are no network effects (like for social networks) and no need to get the product 100% right (like compatibility to Photoshop or Office) and the prices for training will drop further. Furthermore $200 is not free (like Google).

Can anyone name one single widely-used digital product that does _not_ have to be precisely correct/compatible/identical to The Original and that everyone _does_ pay $200/month for?

Therefore, should prices that users pay get anywhere even close to that number, there will naturally be opportunities for competitors to bring prices down to a reasonable level.
by WorldMaker | 2025-07-03 16:55:54+00:00
The `class` keyword is as much "just" syntax sugar for stuff you can do without the `class` keyword. The behaviors are the same.

Late binding happens whether or not the function is a part of the Object's prototype chain or directly attached. JS is built so that's all mostly the same thing. That's why late binding exists. Maybe you copy a function from one prototype to another to create a new sort of prototype with a bit of "code-sharing", which is the same if you want to copy a function directly from one object to another. You want that function to work in all these cases, you don't want to redefine the function explicitly for a different kind of prototype or a different kind of object, you want to pick up what it is bound to by how it is called (thus late binding). Late binding is an ancient feature of JS that feels like a bug if you think `class` works like it does in OO languages like C++ or Java or C#. Late binding feels like a bug if you think of an Object's prototype as being a strongly formed contract and not a runtime object that itself can change at any time, or can be used as a lego brick to construct other types of objects and code-sharing beyond traditional class-based OOP "inheritance" models.

The difference between a "regular object" and thing constructed from a `class` in JS is effectively nonexistent. It's the same stuff, just a few syntax niceties. (In the old days, it was a lot harder to build a clean prototype, `class` makes it a lot cleaner. But that's all it does, it makes it cleaner to write, but under the hood it is entirely the same as it was.)

> in the constructor, using arrow functions?

The example above was the related but similar thing of doing `this.a = this.a.bind(this)` in a class constructor. It's very similar to using `this.a = () => …` arrow functions to early bind `this`. (Assigning a function to itself in a constructor with a `bind()` is also an idiom pattern that predates arrow functions and class syntax. Constructors predate class syntax, but they used to look a lot different. You can still write that form of constructor if you want, but class syntax is a lot cleaner.)

Late binding is an old feature that feels like a bug today, so a lot of people work very hard to early bind functions or only ever use arrow functions because they don't trust late binding.
by jedbrooke | 2025-07-03 16:55:56+00:00
> This grain, formed from tiny particles during the film’s development, is more than just a visual effect. It plays a key role in storytelling by enhancing the film’s depth and contributing to its realism.

I never understood the “grain = realism” thing. my real eyes don’t have grain. I do appreciate the role of grain as an artistic tool though, so this is still cool tech
by satisfice | 2025-07-03 16:56:02+00:00
This reads like a collection of ad hoc advice overfitted to experience that is probably obsolete or will be tomorrow. And we don’t even know if it does fit the author’s experience.

I am looking for solid evidence of the efficacy of folk theories about how to make AI perform evaluation.

Seems to me a bunch of people are hoping that AI can test AI, and that it can to some degree. But in the end AI cannot be accountable for such testing, and we can never know all the holes in its judgment, nor can we expect that fixing a hole will not tear open other holes.
by antonvs | 2025-07-03 16:56:30+00:00
There's a lot of subjectivity here. The last serious C code I wrote was in the early 1990s, and I don't miss it at all, because I don't like spending time on low-level details unrelated to the problem domain I'm working on.

I find Rust fun and easy for writing system-level code, and I have enormous appreciation for the degree of correctness-by-construction that it can provide. Generally, if it builds, it works, as long as you're making proper use of the type system - make illegal states unrepresentable, as the saying goes. That's very difficult to do with C.

Rust isn't perfect. For most things, I'd rather be using Haskell, ML, or something on that level. But it's still on a completely different level from C, and rewriting the software ecosystem in it can only be an improvement.
by blakespot | 2025-07-03 16:57:15+00:00
Indeed, I got my first Amiga in October 1985 - I believe it was the first Amiga sold in Virginia (U.S.) and one of the first ever sold - period.

https://bytecellar.com/2020/10/27/looking-back-on-35-years-a...

I remember those extremely early days, which were filled with slow releases, I must say - but it was a singular experience, playing with that hardware. I left and came back with an Amiga 2000 in 1988 and that was a great time - a peak time to be an Amigoid.

1992 does seem late for a first Amiga - and a 500; I had an A1200 in '92.

I still have two Amigas that I use often (1000, 2000 '020) and a PowerPC "Amiga," that I rarely power on.
by picture | 2025-07-03 16:57:33+00:00
Quite slow. It's largely due to the author using FPGAs wrong. Clocking down a 7-series Artix to 62.5 MHz means the design is not pipelined correctly/enough. My friend got 1 SHA256 hash per cycle at 300 MHz on 7 series, but slightly fewer of the design fit on a chip. Thruput would easily be in the GH/s range.

Keep in mind RTX4090 is 5 nm process node and has a lot more transistors and memory than XC7A100T, which is 28 nm. That's a huge difference in terms of dynamic performance. Also, the two are also released 10 years apart. If you compare RTX4090 against a similarly modern UltraScale part from Xilinx, I believe the FPGA can be notably faster than RTX4090.
by card_zero | 2025-07-03 16:58:19+00:00
The article cites the falling object rules, which I think do mention velocity. This is from the 2nd edition DM guide:

When a character falls, he suffers 1d6 points of damage for every 10 feet fallen, to a maximum of 20d6 (which for game purposes can be considered terminal velocity). This method is simple and it provides all the realism necessary in the game, It is not a scientific calculation of the rate of acceleration, exact terminal velocity, mass, impact energy, etc., of the falling body.

So accelerating the object (increasing its damage) up to some arbitrary cap sounds reasonable. Perhaps limited to twenty times.
by alganet | 2025-07-03 16:58:34+00:00
My OS gets slower and buggy if I don't reboot. So I'll try to convince my users to reboot often and optimize their workflows for rebootability.

Feels like trying to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Once an OS that doesn't require reboots appear, this concept will look silly and everyone that optimized their workflows for reboots will look like dorks.
by ogi_ogi | 2025-07-03 16:58:44+00:00
12 years ago, in a tiny garage in Vijayanagar, a few devs started building a loan management system for the unbanked. No funding, no AC, no plan B.

That system became Mifos, later adopted and matured into Apache Fineract, and is now the backbone for hundreds of fintechs and NBFCs globally.

This is the behind-the-scenes farewell note from one of the original builders who later co-founded Finflux (acquired by M2P).

A great read if you’re into: • Open-source in real-world fintech • Startup → platform → foundation evolution • Stories from outside Silicon Valley
by basisword | 2025-07-03 16:59:31+00:00
>> We have had to put guard rails in place to keep people from sending their AI note-takers to the meetings because they don't listen to our CEO when he says not to do that.

I think this is a big issue. Lots of people give zero thought to data privacy and security and it ruins it for everyone else because companies need to switch to a culture whereby you can't run anything without permission. Maybe it's better to monitor remotely and take punitive action against those who are negligently breaking the rules that have been clear to them?
by cjbenedikt | 2025-07-03 17:00:35+00:00
"Extreme regulation, high taxes, high labour laws, and anti innovation/entrepreneurship is the problem." Couldn't agree less. Entrepreneur who moved his startup from US to Scotland here. Labor costs: 50% of US, lab rent: 1/6th Grants: many more and much higher allocation. Red tape? None met- but lots in US. The EU has a different matrix. SAP is still bigger than Oracle and Germany's Lidl with its own cloud provider is growing leaps and bounds - but doesn't want to conquer the world. Different mentality.