MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
I Built and Shipped Dognames.vip in 24 Hours with ClaudeCode
by yeeyang | 2025-07-15 12:47:59+00:00
Hi everyone,

I'm a product manager. And as a non-coding PM, the idea of building an app from scratch by myself used to be a distant dream. But by collaborating with ClaudeCode, I was able to build and launch Dognames in a single day.

(A quick note: My native language is Chinese, so this article was translated with the help of AI. Please excuse any awkward phrasing!)

Here's a breakdown of my workflow:

1. Discovering the Opportunity: I started with SEO research. Using Semrush, I found a golden keyword opportunity: "girl/boy dog names." It had high search volume but low keyword difficulty (KD).

2. From Idea to Concept (with AI as my user): I shared this initial idea with ClaudeCode. To dig deeper into the user needs, I had ClaudeCode role-play as a potential user. This conversation was a game-changer, pivoting the idea from a simple information aggregation site into an interactive, AI-powered quiz to generate name suggestions.

3. Structuring the Product: Next, we discussed the overall product architecture, including the SEO content system I planned to build out later. Based on our discussion, ClaudeCode generated a detailed Product Requirements Document (PRD.md).

4. Building the Core Functionality: With the plan in place, I had ClaudeCode start by building out the main user flow—the quiz. We focused on getting this core feature working end-to-end first.

5. Refining the Design: I quickly realized the initial design wasn't very appealing. So, I found some great design inspiration on Dribbble and fed it to ClaudeCode. It first analyzed the references to identify the design style, color palette, and key principles. Then, I had it compile this analysis into a formal Design Style Guide, which I manually reviewed and approved.

6. Designing the Homepage: To ensure the homepage was effective, I provided ClaudeCode with design principles from other excellent landing pages. This gave it a clear understanding of what information we needed to showcase.

7. Iterating on the Details: With all the reference material, ClaudeCode completed the homepage. However, some details were missing. I continued to work with it to add polish: a custom cursor, mobile responsiveness, and sourcing puppy images (I instructed it to use Unsplash or find royalty-free images online and download them).

8. Scaling with SEO & Internationalization: With the core product live, we moved on to building out the SEO system and handling multi-language support (i18n). This turned out to be the most time-consuming part of the entire project.

9. The Final Product: And finally, you have the product you see today. The entire process, from idea to launch, took less than 24 hours.

I'm sharing this case study to show that anyone who is willing to try has the opportunity to build the product they envision.

I hope you're inspired to build your own product, too. Even if very few people know about it, there's a special kind of accomplishment in creating something of your own, isn't there?
by namibj | 2025-07-15 12:48:30+00:00
On this note I want to point at "Low-Rank Bottleneck in Multi-head Attention Models", which details how attention inherently needs the query dimension to match or exceed the sequence length to allow precise (and especially, sharp) targeting.

It may be that dimension-starved pretrained transformer models rely heavily on context being correctly "tagged" in all relevant aspects the very instant it's inserted into the KV cache, e.g. necessitating negation to be prefixed to a fact instead of allowing post-fix negation. The common LLM chat case is telling the model it just spewed hallucination/wrong claims, and hoping this will help instead of hurt downstream performance as the chat continues. There specifically the negation is very delayed, and thus not present in most tokens that code the hallucinated claims in the KV cache, and thus for lack of sufficient positional precision due to insufficient dimensionality, the transformer can't retroactively attribute the "that was wrong" claim in a retrievable matter to the hallucination tokens.

The result of course being the behavior we experience: hallucinations are corrected by editing the message that triggered them to include discouraging words, as otherwise the thread will become near-useless from the hallucination context pollution.

I do wonder if we have maybe figured out how to do this more scalable than just naively raising the query dimension to get (back?) closer to sequence length.

[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.07028
by insin | 2025-07-15 12:48:39+00:00
Happy birthday, Django. I've used, read and loved just about every part of you from the magic-removal days onwards when I had the Rails book on my desk and your docs in my browser, and you (and Python) won. I loved spending thousands of lines in a models.py modelling all sorts of problems before I touched a single line of other code. You got me into open source and then you got me into writing JavaScript seriously via the first large library I ever wrote in it (a port of what was then django.newforms - thanks and vale, Malcolm - for Node.js and the browser). You're my favourite framework I haven't actually used for a decade.

Django's docs can't be praised enough, they've always been the gold standard that I aspire to, taking a similar approach to documenting my own stuff seriously leveled me up, and great docs written for humans by humans stand out even more amongst the painlessly effortlessly generated slop of the day that's painful and effortful to read.

Template inheritance was so elegant and simple compared to the Java and PHP I was professionally and personally using at the time, but 20 years later and after having used Hono, one thing I'd love to see in Django is... JSX in Python! Imagine:

def Layout(title: str, children): return ( <html> <head> <title>{title}</title> </head> <body> <h1>{title}</h1> {children} </body> </html> ) def message_list_view(request): messages = ['Good Morning', 'Good Evening', 'Good Night'] return render(request, <Layout title="Messages"> <ul> {[<li>{message}</li> for message in messages]} </ul> </Layout> )
by kevstev | 2025-07-15 12:50:14+00:00
Doesn't anti-theft precautions kick in when you do this? On my Honda, if the battery goes completely dead or when I replace it, I have to enter a code in after, and IIRC all my radio stations reset, so it would be really inconvenient to do this often.

My way around this, which is also somewhat inconvenient- is that I pop the hood and connect a trickle charger if I have a feeling I won't be driving for a few weeks. I have a garage so this is the lesser evil.
by strangescript | 2025-07-15 12:50:18+00:00
The great thing but terrifying thing about innovation is we rarely select how it plays out. People create great ideas and concepts, but they rarely play out exactly how the initial researchers/inventors expected. Did Apple know we would spend all day doom scrolling when it created the iPhone? Did it want that? Would they have viewed that as desirable? Doubtful. But what was the alternative? Not make a smart phone and then wait until someone else does create one who has even less concern for people's well being. Or better yet, how could they have even predicted the outcome in 2007?

Humanity has never been able to put the innovation genie back in the bottle. At best we have delayed it, but even those situations require there be a finite resource that can be easily regulated and controlled. AI is not one of those things.
by Macha | 2025-07-15 12:50:25+00:00
Do people post on social media at high enough resolution to do this?

Especially since the claim was in 2012, is airplane wifi and roaming data reliable enough for people to view enough ads to do this?

Also where are you getting all a users ad impressions across different providers to have this kind of timing information?

There's a lot of creepy data available linked to ads and lots of companies doing enrichment with different fields if you have already have a real identifier for a user (e.g. phone number, email, cc, isp account number), but this sounds way more like "we created a load of hypothetical simulated data and pretended we had access to all of it"
by Bender | 2025-07-15 12:51:45+00:00
Change the laws to allow server operators to just send an RTA header [1] and leave the verification to parental controls on the client side. It's not a server operators job to be everyone's parent. It's not perfect, it will be bypassed by teens but it's better than what we have today and does not leak identities.

- Add header to anything that may contain adult content or user-provided content.

- Change law to allow RTA headers as an alternative means of adult verification.

- Set a time requirement in the law for all major browsers and all web clients used by small children to implement or utilize existing parental controls. When enabled check for header and prompt for authentication unless the site was already approved by the parent in parental controls. That is where parental controls belong.

- Remind politicians that the 3rd party verification sites will ultimately leak all their data and their family members data just like what was used to reverse engineer trips to Epstein island. [2] All of the politicians kinks will be exposed using such sites and/or they will be at risk of being blackmailed. Whatever lobbying or kickbacks they are getting for approving the 3rd party sites will not be worth it.

[1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single

[2] - https://www.wired.com/video/watch/we-tracked-every-visitor-t...
by h46u5jytyhtg | 2025-07-15 12:52:49+00:00
I completely disagree with the premise of the article that draws are most boring and the wider the score difference the more interesting the game is.

Frequently draws are very exciting, they can make compelling viewing. In a game that is completely dominated by one team, there can be very little of interest.

An alternative metric would be the degree of uncertainty/jeopardy in the game. So a game that ends 1-1 has a high degree of jeopardy because at any moment a team can score and take point from the other team.
by jcims | 2025-07-15 12:53:19+00:00
In case it's not clear, that 'chirp' is exactly what we would hear if the merger was powerful enough to actually be detectable by our ears. It's the vibration induced in the final moments and the frequency is the speed at which the blackholes are orbiting each other before they merge. Things the size of multiples of our Sun dancing around each other a thousand times per second. It's insane to me.
by simonw | 2025-07-15 12:54:14+00:00
I believe extensions inherit the permissions that the editor has already - so if you've given Cursor or VS Code permission to access a folder any extensions they run later can access it too.

I agree, this seems bad! Sandboxing is still a very weakly implemented craft for most applications, especially those that run extensions or plugins.

(I build a lot of software that runs plugins and has no sandboxing at all, and it really frustrates me. I'm constantly looking out for cross-platform Python-friendly sandboxing tech that might help with this in the future.)
by Herring | 2025-07-15 12:54:28+00:00
Cars were/are inevitable. But they did massive damage to human fitness, which we still haven't recovered from. I intentionally don't own one, and at least some places in the world are starting to wake up and restrict them and build walkable cities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0&ab_channel=NotJu...
by Workaccount2 | 2025-07-15 12:54:55+00:00
People like communicating in natural language.

LLMs are the first step in the movement away from the "early days" of computing where you needed to learn the logic based language and interface of computers to interact with them.

That is where the inevitabilism comes from. No one* wants to learn how to use a computer, they want it to be another entity that they can just talk to.

*I'm rounding off the <5% who deeply love computers.
by jowea | 2025-07-15 12:54:56+00:00
I add to this that we have plenty of examples of societies that don't keep up with technological advancement, or "history" more broadly get left behind. Competition in a globalized world makes some things inevitable. I'm not agreeing in full with the most AI will change everything arguments, but those last couple of paragraphs of TFA sounds to me like standing athwart history, yelling "Stop!".
by jitl | 2025-07-15 12:56:41+00:00
Postgres has really not solved problems that come with being a networked server and will collapse under concurrent connections far before you start to feel it with SQLite. 5000 concurrent connections will already start to deadlock your Postgres server; each new connection in Postgres is a new Postgres process and the state for the connection needs to be written to various internal tracking tables. It has a huge amount of overhead; connection pooling in PG is required and often the total system has a rather low fixed limit compared to idk, writing 200 lines of python code or whatever and getting orders of magnitude more connections out of a single machine.
by r0uv3n | 2025-07-15 12:57:27+00:00
Eh, space inside or outside the horizon is only different in so far as to whether it can reach our timelike infinity. Locally you cannot even tell where any horizon might be (just look at a small patch of a Penrose diagram near a horizon), they are very much something related to global properties of the spacetime. In particular it's not problematic to talk about some extended volume in spacetime occupied by mass, as long as the divergence of the stress energy tensor is 0.

The point where our notions of geometry would break down would be near the singularity, not near the horizon, and we don't even know if a volume enclosed by a horizon (i.e. anything you might call a black hole) necessarily has a singularity inside, it's just that our simple mathematical models all assume one.
by taylodl | 2025-07-15 12:57:39+00:00
> The vibe of the whole thing felt a lot like the old things we had in the 80s and early 90s

Except back then you were doing all the discovering and figuring stuff out without any help from your parents. At least that's the way it was in my circle of friends. When a 10-year-old is able to do everything you did without any assistance from an adult, then we'll have the spirit of the Commodore 64.
by strangescript | 2025-07-15 12:57:53+00:00
I think the difference between all previous technologies is scope. If you make a super sonic jet that gets people from place A to place B faster for more money, but the target consumer is like "yeah, I don't care that much about that at that price point", then your tech sort is of dead. You are also fully innovated on that product, like maybe you can make it more fuel efficient, sure, but your scope is narrow.

AI is the opposite. There are numerous things it can do and numerous ways to improve it (currently). There is lower upfront investment than say a supersonic jet and many more ways it can pivot if something doesn't work out.
by killerstorm | 2025-07-15 12:58:31+00:00
Cheaper models might be around $0.01 per request, and it's not subsidized: we see a lot of different providers offering open source models, which offer quality similar to proprietary ones. On-device generation is also an option now.

For $1 I'm talking about Claude Opus 4. I doubt it's subsidized - it's already much more expensive than the open models.
by zamalek | 2025-07-15 12:59:17+00:00
For dotnet exceptions are expensive where they are caught, at least if you're looking for the largest effect: it's the unwind.

As for smaller effects that matter in really hot code: try/catch also disallows a method from being inlined. Throw disallowed inlining when I wrote System.HashCode, but this was considered a bug and I'm not sure if it has been fixed - the workaround was to use utility throw methods.
by cmiles74 | 2025-07-15 12:59:23+00:00
This whole comparison is weird. The internet opened doors of communication between people who were very distant from each other. It enabled new methods of commerce and it made it easier for people to research and purchase product. Anyone interested in a particular subject could find other people interested in that same area and learn from them, increasing their knowledge. Ad-hoc organizations were much easier.

These are all things that the majority of people wanted. I understand that software developers find many benefits from using LLMs and I encourage us to put that to the side for the moment. When we look at the rest of the places where LLMs are being put to use, how excited are the majority of people?

I'd argue that people, in the larger sense, are nowhere near as excited about LLMs as they were about the internet.
by throw7484485 | 2025-07-15 13:01:27+00:00
Downloading random code from internet is just normal development on Mac. Brew, npm and other sorts of "package managers".

I have code, passwords and certificates separated in virtual machines, even IDE GUI app is virtualized, and has no rights to access GitHub, internet or filesystem directly.

But I get a lot of flack from coworkers. They say it is unintuitive and uses x86 CPU which is uncool. Mac has no reasonable VM software or secure containers!
by rybosome | 2025-07-15 13:01:44+00:00
I encourage you to try this yourself and see how you feel.

Recently I used an LLM to help me build a small application in Rust, having never used it before (though I had a few years of high performance C++ experience).

The LLM wrote most of the code, but it was no more than ~100 lines at a time, then I’d tweak, insert, commit, plan the next feature. I hand-wrote very little, but I was extremely involved in the design and layout of the app.

Without question, I learned a lot about Rust. I used tokio’s async runtime, their mpsc channels, and streams to make a high performance crawler that worked really well for my use case.

If I needed to write Rust without an LLM now, I believe I could do it - though it would be slower and harder.

There’s definitely a “turn my brain off and LLM for me” way to use these tools, but it is reductive to state that ALL usage of such tools is like this.
by cyphar | 2025-07-15 13:01:44+00:00
You are restating what I said in my first paragraph -- yes, if they are the sole copyright holders they are not bound by the distribution rules of the GPLv3 in the same way as everyone else -- even if the GPLv3 did attempt to restrict the original author, as sole copyright holders they would be able to ignore the provision anyway.

I still don't agree that this is in the spirit of the GPLv3. In my view, the binaries at least are under a proprietary license.
by Thiez | 2025-07-15 13:03:02+00:00
It cannot. The event horizon by definition prevents mass and energy from leaving (ignoring the exception of Hawking radiation here). I'm assuming your "black hole droplet" would be a tiny black hole? But if you could remove a little chunk from the black hole then you've effectively taken mass out of it, which is impossible.

It is even the case that once two black holes have overlapping event horizons (so they "touch" in a way) they can't stop touching. So two black holes can zip past one another at a small distance, but if they high-five they can't stop merging.
by loudmax | 2025-07-15 13:03:14+00:00
Looking at the rollout of the internet, it did take decades. There was a lot of nonsensical hype in the dotcom era, most famously pets.com taking out an ad during the Superbowl. Most of those companies burned through their VC and went out of business. Yet here we are today. It's totally normal to get your pet food from chewy.com and modern life without the internet is unimaginable.

Today we see a clear path toward machines that can take on most of the intellectual labor that humans do. Scott Alexander's 2027 time frame seems optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on how you feel about the outcome). But by say 2037? The only way that vision of the future doesn't come true is economic collapse that puts us back to 20th century technology. Focusing on whether the technology is LLMs or diffusion models or whatever is splitting hairs.
by jstummbillig | 2025-07-15 13:03:30+00:00
> where a program writes arbitrary programs for us

That seems like a strange requirement and I am not sure where you are getting it from. Programs are not arbitrary, and software design is something you will need to do at some level; you need to at least be able to describe the problem you are having and getting that right has been the hardest part of software development for a long time.
Show HN: Opper AI – Task-Completion API for LLMs
by felix089 | 2025-07-15 13:03:41+00:00
Hey HN! We’re building Opper AI (https://opper.ai), a task-completion API for large language models. You describe tasks once in JSON - inputs, expected output, and a success test — and call a single endpoint. Opper handles prompting, retries, fallbacks, and evaluation. You can check out our docs here: https://docs.opper.ai.

LLM features often fail in production due to fragile, model-specific prompt chains. That’s why we built a task-completion API to make model calls as reliable as any other API: you declare what you want, and it manages the interaction with 80+ proprietary and open-source models. If the output fails, Opper retries or falls back automatically. Successful completions can be saved as task specific dataset entries and serve as examples for future generations. When the completion passes (or retries are exhausted), you get structured output plus a pass/fail flag.

For example, gettested.io previously spent weeks rewriting prompts to generate consistent blood test summaries. With Opper, a single task definition now delivers reports in 62 countries without any edits.

Key features:

- Define tasks in JSON: inputs, outputs, success test

- Automatic prompt construction, retries and fallbacks

- Quality through task specific datasets and in-context learning

- Full observability (llm-as-a-judge, prompts, responses, tokens, costs)

- Free tier up to $5/mon. Utility plan from $5/month gets you high rate limits

We built Opper after our last startup, Unomaly (ML observability, acquired 2020). Our vision with Opper is to let developers work with LLMs the same way they write code and get reliable results.

The task-completion API is live today. We’d love for you to give it a try and would appreciate any feedback you have.

Thanks for checking it out!
by renegat0x0 | 2025-07-15 13:04:17+00:00
I think that people often project their own assumptions. How do you know how much of it (lyric-wise) was AI generated?

If prodigy created track based on samples from other songs they cannot use word "create"?

If I create a "collage" art, am I not creating something?

I think that some people are fixated on creation part. "You didn't create this picture, because you used Adobe filter on you digital art", "You didn't create this picture because you are digital artist, and was not using real brushes", "You didn't create Hellblade Senua game, because you just used Unreal Engine, and it did the heavy lifting for your, so you didn't really create the game".
by mark_l_watson | 2025-07-15 13:04:56+00:00
As much as I love open source software and open weight LLMs, let’s get real: a combination of special interests ‘owning’ both political parties, the rise of the “Tech Bros” who don’t care a rat’s ass about anyone but themselves, and a permanent War Department fueling extreme profit for inside players - future looks a little grim.

I fight back by using the technology I want, lead a spiritual/religious life and am loving with the people I interact with.
by alonsonic | 2025-07-15 13:05:22+00:00
I'm confused with your second point. LLM companies are not making any money from current models? Openai generates 10b USD ARR and has 100M MAUs. Yes they are running at a loss right now but that's because they are racing to improve models. If they stopped today to focus on optimization of their current models to minimize operating cost and monetizing their massive user base you think they don't have a successful business model? People use this tools daily, this is inevitable.