MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ben_w | 2025-07-03 11:41:27+00:00
Russia stopped being a superpower with the fall of the USSR. And before anyone says so, "has a permanent seat on UN security council" doesn't count, the UK and France also have that status and even combined were no longer superpowers by the time of the Suez crisis. Likewise "has nukes" is not sufficient.

The EU is closer to being one than Russia is today, and even then the EU is only kinda a bit of one in some measures but not all.
by jon-wood | 2025-07-03 11:43:10+00:00
Over the years I've moved away from thinking of the daily standup as being a way to update everyone on what we're doing. The value in it is having a daily time when everyone on the team sees each other's faces and has a brief conversation. Sometimes it'll be a quick hello, other times we'll talk for half an hour about nothing in particular, but that's valuable on a remote team where it's all to easy to forget that everyone else is a real person.
by mjburgess | 2025-07-03 11:43:13+00:00
The issue with this analysis is that it cannot explain the use of the term "man" in most contexts, nor literal claims to being a man.

In the first case, take a law about pensions -- the law-writer wasnt giving masculine-presenting people fewer years of their pension than feminine-presenting people; they were applying it to adult males. This applies very generally across many uses of man/woman -- the speaker just doesn't mean masculine-people and feminine-people, even if that highly correlates with the people they did mean. (Taking masculine/feminie to mean those presenting-characteristics).

In the second case, consider the claim, "I am really a man!", if that's only a claim to masculine-presentation then 'really' doesnt make sense, right? How could an audience ever be mistaken about this? What is at issue when people claim this, or dispute this? No person who asks, "are you really X?" is disputing how something is already perceived as-being-X.

Compare with, "are you really a crook?", "are you really a police officer?", "are you really a witch?" In each case there is a literal, descriptive, perception-independent meaning.

One reply to me here is to bite the bullet and say, "I am really a man(, I am just perceived to be a woman)!" is meaningless. That claims, "I am really a man/woman!" are meaningless. That makes sense out of the view that it's all just social perception, but its kinda implausible -- because we've written so much using these terms that there's clearly a literal meaning.

Eg., consider going to the pension office to collect a pension at the age for which women are allowed it but men are not. You speak to the pension officer and say, "I'm a woman, so I'm allowed my pension now". It seems the pension officer can meaningfully dispute this, "Are you really a woman?"

If you asked, "what do you mean?" the pension officer could coherently say, "pension age for women is 66, meaning if you are female and an adult over 66 then you are entitled to.."

It would seem disqualifying to reply, "I am a woman because I am perceived to be the same as the people who qualify"
by southernplaces7 | 2025-07-03 11:43:40+00:00
Oh my god, the information and social media might be "foreign"!! that's obviously cause for suspicion and prohibition. Do you perhaps live in some brainless mid-20th century authoritarian fantasy of social dangers?

If you think X domestic legislation doesn't come with its own baggage of profit motives, hidden agendas and attempts at controlling narratives for young people, you're in for a rude awakening if you dig a bit deeper.

That aside, i'd rather parents being the ones who decide what minors see instead of some hackneyed government censorship program rammed through by a plethora of boogeymen and possibly (very likely) later used to track and censor adult access to information choices.

Laws like these and their supporters can both fuck off. It's the same old story from going back centuries, nationalist, religious or generally moralizing bullshit about the supposed dangers of some nefarious influence being used to restrict what I decide to read, watch or think about.
by quietbritishjim | 2025-07-03 11:43:46+00:00
I think perhaps you are not realising the negative tone of your comments. There is no way to read "How is one supposed to know this? Reading the documentation?" except sarcasm. No amount of good faith in unrelated comment threads changes this. I believe that's why you're getting downvoted - not because people are easily offended about D, as you seem to believe.
by immibis | 2025-07-03 11:44:25+00:00
Haskell monads have been described as "programmable semicolons" because they specify ways to interpret "do" blocks.

In some sense they are a little bit similar to Python classes. A Python class is a block of code, which runs in a normal Python way, and then the variables put in scope by that code are passed to a metaclass constructor which creates some kind of object based on them. Monads are nothing like that, but they are similar in that user code is interleaved with framework code to produce an effect similar to a DSL. Monads run one statement at a time, interleaving one statement execution with one monad join operation.
by vaxman | 2025-07-03 11:44:52+00:00
The Solution here is as it always has been --to build furniture that's used to support students with built-in monitors that connect wirelessly (AirPlay or something like Apple's SmartConnector) when an iPhone is placed top of them (or a nearby cradle). As for the keyboard and iPhone, that's up to the Students, though there are widely available programs available to help pay for and insure them along with student discounts and public grants. This solution implies that Apple would allow a Dex-like solution on iOS, which I think is imminent based on recent iPadOS announcements and obvious increases in RAM/storage.

I legit first conceived of this type of setup in 1977-1978 where the iPhone+keyboard part was a "book safe" that contained an 1802 SBC covered by a PET-1 type keyboard and external jacks for NTSC (1861 video output) out, power in and a 5-pin DIN for TTL+audio (Q-line) cassette recorder. Students would be able to plug-in in the class, lab, library or at home. Let's just say Hollywood had thoroughly ruined the minds of the faculty and students and they lost out, despite being one of the top institutions in a region filled with Defense families. But by 1992, I was going wheels up from SJC with my PowerBook 170 still FAXing my contracting invoices via an RJ11 (POTS) phone line to a 3.5W Tandy BagPhone stuffed under my seat on my way home (will it finish before the signal fades LOL), typically telling this same story about the "textbook computer" to the unsettled random person in the isle seat.
by georgejg | 2025-07-03 11:44:58+00:00
I learned the biggest improvements came from orientation and support settings. For example, orienting the model to reduce overhangs drastically cuts down on support needs and post-processing. On models from platforms like https://www.gambody.com/stock , I’ve noticed they’re often split into parts designed with FDM in mind, which really helps with clean finishes and faster prints. I usually slice with lower layer heights (around 0.12 mm for detailed areas), slow down the print speed, and raise the temperature slightly for better flow. It’s also worth experimenting with tree supports in Cura or using custom supports in PrusaSlicer to only place them where absolutely needed. Every model is different, so testing orientations and printing smaller test parts first can save you time and frustration.
by HappMacDonald | 2025-07-03 11:45:04+00:00
Yeah I'm envisioning putting a thousand simplistic robotic "infants" into a vast "playpen" to gather sensor data about their environment, for some (probably smaller) number of deep learning models to ingest the input and guess at output strategies (move this servo, rotate this camshaft this far in that direction, etc) and make predictions about resulting changes to input.

In principle a thousand different deep learning models could all train simultaneously on a thousand different robot experience feeds.. but not 1 to 1, but instead 1 to many.. each neural net training on data from dozens or hundreds of the robots at the same time, and different neural nets sharing those feeds for their own rounds of training.

Then of course all of the input data paired with outputs tested and further inputs as ground truth to predictions can be recorded for continued training sessions after the fact.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-07-03 11:45:11+00:00
This is in tandem with several generations of programming language, tooling, best practices, etc. LLMs haven't suddenly increased people's productivity, improved tooling did.

Back when these tools did not exist yet, a lot of this knowledge didn't exist yet. Software now is built on the shoulders of giants. You can write a line of code and get a window in your operating system, people like Bill Gates and his generation wrote the low level graphics code and had to come up with the concept of a window first, had to invent the fundamentals of graphics programming, had to wait and interact with hardware vendors to help make it performant.
by b112 | 2025-07-03 11:46:13+00:00
I'm waiting for someone to use an LLM to handle all AWS deployment, without review, and eventual bankrupcy as the result.

Even better if the accountants are using LLMs.

Or even better, hardware prototyping using LLMs with EEs barely knowing what they are doing.

So far, most software dumbassery with LLMs can at least be fixed. Fixing board layouts, or chip designs, not as easy.
by UncleMeat | 2025-07-03 11:46:39+00:00
> Instead of fixing the things in the original PR, I'd often get a completely different approach as the response to my first review. Again, often broken in new and subtle ways.

I didn't expect this initially but I am seeing it a ton at work now and it is infuriating. Some big change lands in my lap to review and it has a bunch of issues but they can ultimately be worked out. Then kaboom it is an entirely different change that I need to review from scratch. Usually the second review is just focused on the edits that fixed the comments from my first review. But now we have to start all over.
by subjectsigma | 2025-07-03 11:47:17+00:00
I used to get wrapped around the axle about things like this and write analysis posts which I normally did not end up publishing. I stopped doing it because I realized it’s not helpful. This isn’t going to change anything or help anyone. People are going to continue to make dumb arguments and that’s fine. Not everything has to rise to the level of philosophy.

I guess if you legitimately enjoy meta-commentary of social media posts then keep doing you.
by djexjms | 2025-07-03 11:47:39+00:00
That's a nice ideal. I honestly kind of agree with you in the sense that I wish that was how things were. But in my view, it's easier to think about the police as a force whose primary purpose is to enforce the property rights of the capital holding class. In the United States there have been court rulings clarifying that police officers are never obligated to risk their lives.

If you look at the actual numbers, at least in the US, policing can really only be viewed as a risky profession from a white-collar point of view. According to OSHA, construction workers, truck drivers, farmers, and even pilots all have a greater likelihood of dying on the job.
by 4ndrewl | 2025-07-03 11:47:45+00:00
I know what you mean, but weighing up things:

- oh, it's that guy again

+ prodigiously writes and shares insights in the open

+ builds some awesome tools, free - llm cli, datasette

+ not trying to sell any vendor/model/service

On balance, the world would be better of with more simonw shaped people
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-07-03 11:47:51+00:00
Exactly; it's not about the volume of code, it's about the value of it. The best code is the code never written.

Reminds me of a former colleague of mine, I'd sit next to him and get frustrated because he was a two-finger typer. But, none of his code was wasted. I frequently write code, then cmd+z back to ten minutes ago or just `git checkout .` because I lost track.
by mccoyb | 2025-07-03 11:48:25+00:00
I spend a significant amount of time (a) curating the test suite, and making sure it matches my notion of correctness and (b) forcing the agent to make PNG visuals (which Claude Code can see, by the way, and presumably also Gemini CLI, and maybe Aider?, etc)

I'd have to do this anyways, if I was writing the code myself, so this is not "time above what I'd normally spend"

The visuals it makes for me I can inspect and easily tell if it is on the right path, or wrong. The test suite is a sharper notion of "this is right, this is wrong" -- more sharp than just visual feedback and my directions.

The basic idea is to setup a feedback loop for the agent, and then keep the agent in the loop, and observe what it is doing. The visuals are absolutely critical -- as a compressed representation of the behavior of the codebase, which I can quickly and easily parse and recognize if there are issues.
by FrustratedMonky | 2025-07-03 11:48:31+00:00
I literally said "why just one event".

I don't know if it was asteroid or not, that is why there is controversy.

How is "sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America" not an event?

As to the derision on asteroids, not sure why, considering we find evidence of them everywhere. Why not consider it as an option.

Sorry if my memory is like everyone else's. When the Greenland Crater was found, there were 100's of articles linking it to Younger Dryas. It was dated later and discounted as being too old, that did NOT get 100's of articles, so was not widely known. I didn't realize it till this exchange.
by calrain | 2025-07-03 11:48:40+00:00
I've always enjoyed software design, for me the coding was the bottleneck and it was frustrating as I had to roll through different approaches when I so clearly knew the outcome that I wanted.

Using Claude Code to first write specs, then break it down into cards, build glossaries, design blueprints, and finally write code, is just a perfect fit for someone like me.

I know the fundamentals of programming, but since 1978 I've written in so many languages that the syntax now gets in the way, I just want to write code that does what I want, and LLM's are beyond amazing at that.

I'm building API's and implementing things I'd never dreamed of spending time on learning, and I can focus on what I really want, design, optimisation, simplification, and outcomes.

LLM's are amazing for me.
by fredrikholm | 2025-07-03 11:49:43+00:00
My suspicion is that all type of work is this; a universal issue where quality and forethought are at odds with quantity and good enough (where good enough trends towards worse over time).

Before SE I had a bunch of vastly different jobs and they all suffered from something akin to crab bucket mentality where doing a good job was something you got away with.

I've had jobs where doing the right thing was something you kept to yourself or suffer for it.
by fisf | 2025-07-03 11:50:22+00:00
> No amount of internal review and coding standards and etc will catch all of these things. You can only hope that you build the muscle memory to catch most of them, and that muscle memory is forged through being punched in the face

Everything you mentioned is security 101, widely known, and can be caught by standard tools. Shrugging that off as a learning experience does not really hold much water in a professional context.
by fakedang | 2025-07-03 11:50:24+00:00
Except it makes sense in a lot of recent off-shoring cases. While there are still your usual stupid companies outsourcing to Indian WITCH, a lot of midsize companies are also doing alright with nearshoring to either LatAm or even just out of SF/Seattle/NY (in the case of US companies), and Eastern Europe (in the case of EU companies). Even in biotech for instance, preliminary research has been successfully outsourced to either academia or to Indian and Chinese CROs. The latter have done exceptionally well, even innovating new products on their own and licensing them to the US market. The myth of onsite worker efficiency was practically shattered with Covid.

Where the Western worker can really only shine is in advancing on the tech forefront and helping keep that tech within Western borders. Stuff like defence or cybersecurity or some advanced new product/tool development. Anything else is free to be arbitraged away.
by latexr | 2025-07-03 11:51:26+00:00
I’m not surprised this is a thing, but I didn’t expect some of it to be so obvious and overt. The fact that works is even more worrying, it feels like the Simpson’s superliminal messaging in real life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roswPPr2t3U

Tangentially, why do all screenshots look like they were taken from a pirated VHS?
by orwin | 2025-07-03 11:51:36+00:00
I used Sonnet4 to write my last frontend task, fully, with minimal input. It is so much better than ChatGPT it's unbelievable, but while a 6hour coding task was transformed into a 30 minutes supervision task that generated good, but also correct code, I was a bit afraid for new engineers coming into an old project.

How are you supposed to understand code if you don't at least read it and fail a bit?

I'll continue using Sonnet4 for frontend personally, it always had been a pain point in the team and I ended up being the most knowledgeable on it. Unless it's a new code architecture, I will understand what was changed and why, so I have confidence I can handle rapid iteration of code on it, but my coworkers who already struggled with our design will probably have even more struggles.

Sadly I think in the end our code will be worse, but we are a team of 5 doing the work of a team of 8, so any help is welcome (we used to do the work of 15 but our 10x developper sadly (for us) got caught being his excellent self by the CTO and now handle a new project. Hopefully with executive-level pay)
by sokoloff | 2025-07-03 11:52:53+00:00
I have seen the revolving cast of characters bit play out several times. It’s as if they hire 1 or 2 competent people and rotate them to face the client that is currently screaming the loudest.

To be fair though, in your case it aounds like 51% (and maybe even 75+%) of the defect was in the specifications.
by johnisgood | 2025-07-03 11:52:59+00:00
Well, I did not intend my statement to be sarcastic. It was a genuine question. Blame my lack of social skills, or the fact that I am on the spectrum. I was curious about the implementation details, i.e. why "!" (in map), why "a", why "idup", etc. That is not to say I am reluctant to read the documentation, I am more than willing, but I wanted to know the story behind it. I have ideas, but they might be wrong. I do not want to guess when I can have a direct answer from Walter.
by brazzy | 2025-07-03 11:54:07+00:00
Passkeys absolutely make sense from a security (and in theory also UX) POV. Handling logins for dozens of services is either very insecure (reuse), has even worse vendor lock in (federated ID), or has pretty bad UX (password manager).

In practice, unfortunately the UX gains are not realized because interoperability is unsolved, because vendors have little motivation to solve it and eliminate the lock in.
by Foreignborn | 2025-07-03 11:55:18+00:00
Everyone is responsible for what they deliver. No one is shipping gluttonous CLs, because no one would review them. You still have to know and defend your work.

Not sure what to tell you otherwise. The code is much more thought through, with more tests, and better docs. There’s even entire workflows for the CI portion and review.

I would look at workflows like this as augmentation than automation.
by david-gpu | 2025-07-03 11:55:36+00:00
I once saw something like that where there was an existing codebase and a different business unit in the company wanted to add a large new feature.

The contractors simply wanted to get paid, naturally. The people who paid them didn't understand the original codebase, and they did not communicate with the people who designed and built the original codebase either. The people who built the original code were overworked and saw the whole bruhaha as a burden over which they had no control.

It was a low seven figure contract. The feature was scrapped after two or three years while the original product lived on and evolved for many years after that.

I hope that management learned their lesson, but I doubt it.
by cookiengineer | 2025-07-03 11:56:05+00:00
I wanted to add to your points that I think that there's a lack of understanding in architecture, which the previous generation has learned through refactoring and unit tests.

If LLMs will be able to write unit tests, this will get worse, because there will be no time spent reflecting about "what do I need" or "how can this be simplified". These are, in my opinion, how to characterize the differences between a Developer, Engineer, and Architect mindset. And LLMs / vibe coding will never develop actual engineers or architects, because they never can develop that mindset.

The easiest programming language to spot those architectural mistakes in is coincidentially the one with the least syntax burden. In Go it's pretty easy to discover these types of issues in reviews because you can check the integrated unit tests, which help a lot in narrowing down the complexities of code branches (and whether or not a branch was reached, for example).

In my opinion we need better testing/review methodologies. Fuzz testing, unit testing and integration testing isn't enough.

We need some kind of logical inference tests which can prove that code branches are kept and called, and allow to confirm satisfiabilities.
by bahra_mehdi | 2025-07-03 11:56:11+00:00
Browse Anything is an AI agent (computer use agent) that can browse the web, automate tasks, extract data, generate reports, and much more, all from a simple prompt. Think of it as your personal web assistant, powered by AI. Key features: - Navigate websites autonomously - Scrape and structure data - Generate CSV or PDF files - Update Google Sheets or Notion - Keep a Human in the loop for validation
by data_yum_yum | 2025-07-03 11:56:25+00:00
Code is always the bottleneck because people aren’t always thoughtful about how they design it.

Coordination, communication, etc… honestly not that big of a deal if you have the right people. If you are working with the wrong people coordination and communication will never be great no matter what “coordination tools you bring in”. If you have a good team, we can be sending messenger pigeons for all o care and things will still work out.

Just my opinions.
by diggan | 2025-07-03 11:59:18+00:00
re Bitwarden Passkeys export/import, I found this:

> Q: Are stored passkeys included in Bitwarden imports and exports?

> A: Passkeys are included in .json exports from Bitwarden. The ability to transfer your passkeys to or from another passkey provider is planned for a future release.

https://bitwarden.com/help/storing-passkeys/#passkey-managem...

But I'm not sure I understand the last part, how is the "ability to transfer your passkeys to another passkey provider" planned for a future Bitwarden release, if the Passkeys are already included in the export data? Wouldn't that be up to other Passkey providers to implement the import? Or is the export data not complete enough for an import?
by zbentley | 2025-07-03 11:59:24+00:00
You didn’t really answer GP’s point, though. What if a big, strong family is struck by disaster (multiple earners lose jobs or die, or one member develops, say, an illness or huge debt which consumes the entire family’s resources)?

Those kind of scenarios aren’t that rare even in places with very family-first social safety nets (which, incidentally, are often places with high poverty and low standard of living).