MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ksec | 2025-07-20 01:13:14+00:00
>we won't be left with an enduring and useful piece of infrastructure adding a trillion dollars to the global economy annually.

Nearly all colleagues I know working inside a very large non-tech organisation are using Copilot for part of their work in the past 12 months. I have never seen tech adoption this quick for normal every day consumer. Not PC, Not Internet, Not Smartphone.

I actually had discussions with parents about our kids using ChartGPT. Every single one of them at school are using it. Honestly I didn't like it but they were actually the one who got used to it first and I quote "Who still uses Google?". That was when I learn there will be a tectonic shift in tech.

Does it actually add productivity? may be. Is it worth the trillion dollar investment? I have no idea. But are we going back? As someone who knows a lot about consumer behaviour I will say that is a definite no.

Note to myself. This feels another iPhone moment again. Except this time around lots of the tech people are skeptic of it, but consumer are adopting faster. When iPhone launch a lot of tech people knew it will be the future. But consumer took some time. Even MKBHD acknowledge his first Smartphone was in the iPhone 4s era.
by crote | 2025-07-20 01:13:35+00:00
The main difference is the ecosystem. The Haskell community has always focused primarily on the computer science part, so the developer experience has mostly been neglected. They have been unable to attract a large enough hobbyist community to develop the libraries and tooling you'd take for granted with any other language, and no company is willing to pay for it out of pocket either. Even load-bearing libraries feel like a half-finished master's thesis, because that's usually what it is.

No amount of advertising is going to propel Haskell to a mainstream language. If it wants to succeed (and let's be honest, it probably doesn't), it's going to need an investment of millions of developer-hours in libraries and tooling. No matter how pretty and elegant the language may be, if you have to reinvent the wheel every time you go beyond "hello world" you're going to think twice before considering it for production code.
by nine_k | 2025-07-20 01:14:21+00:00
Wat would prevent a HTMX frontend from scaling horizontally? Maybe the backend, if it cannot scale horizontally. Otherwise, a million pages can be served the same way as a dozen. (A million is actually not so much, one average API box could suffice.)

Where HTMX would run into trouble is complicated frontend logic, where updates of one area may trigger changes in another, etc.
by romaniv | 2025-07-20 01:14:38+00:00
From the video: "It's like, yeah, he said that in 2003, right? He said that after a very long time. So why did he say it? It's because 10 years earlier, he was already saying he kind of soured on it."

https://youtu.be/wo84LFzx5nI?t=823

He mentions Alan Kay about dozen times and uses quotes and dates to create a specific narrative about Smalltalk. That narrative is demonstrably false.
by firesteelrain | 2025-07-20 01:15:24+00:00
I run a system that has multi site replication to multiple Artifactory instances all replicating from one single Master to all Spokes. Each one can hold up to 2PB. While Artifactory supports writing to a backup location, given the size of our artifacts, we chose to not have an actual backup. Just live replication to five different sites. Never have tried to restore or replicate back to main. I am not even sure how that would work if the spokes are all “*-cache”.

Backend storage for each Artifactory instance is Dell Isilon.
by Miten_2403 | 2025-07-20 01:16:13+00:00
A month ago I had this idea: I’ve been using WhatsApp self-chat as my todo app for 5+ years. Whenever something pops up — “Buy socks”, “Call dentist”, “Submit form” — I dump it there. Fast, no friction.

I also use ChatGPT a lot. So I thought… What if I combine both? A chatbot you just message like “remind me to call mom on Tuesday 5pm” — and it pings you back when needed. No app. No signup. Just chat.

I’m not a techie. Tried to build with no-code — it broke. Tried again with a bit of AI + Cursor — now it mostly works. I felt good. Like finally something useful.

Then I launched it.

Reddit. Discord. Twitter. LinkedIn. Friends. Crickets. There are 9 users. 7 are test accounts. One’s my dad (he never opened it). One’s my friend (he replied “meh”).

So now I’m here.

Did I waste a month? Or is this actually a good idea that needs a better push? Would love honest thoughts — I can take brutal feedback.
by jen729w | 2025-07-20 01:17:08+00:00
This is all very emotive and I'm sure is a dream many of us would love to live.

But does Claude's code work? Does it work to the level where you'd depend on it yourself; where you'd bill customers for it; where you'd put your reputation behind it?

I say no. And it's because I use Claude. Two events changed how I use Claude: now it's an advisor, and I mostly type the code myself. Because I don't trust it.

First, I caught it copying one of my TypeScript interfaces and modifying it. So now we have User which looks like my actual user, that I defined, and UserAgain which does not, and which Claude is now using and proudly proclaiming that my type checks all pass. Well of course they do!

Second, I was told that the best way to catch this sort of thing is to get it to write tests. So it wrote some tests, and they failed, and it kept going, and it eventually wrote an un-failable test. The test mocked itself.

So, sure, enjoy time with your kids. Please don't ask me to use your app for anything important.
by thedailymail | 2025-07-20 01:18:01+00:00
When kids say (as one does in this essay) that AI will do the writing for them in the future anyway, so there's no point in learning to write, they have a point. But there is a second function of writing, which is to strengthen parts of the mind. Maybe in the future there will be "gyms" for developing these mental muscles in the same way we have fitness centers at a time when physical labor has become much less common in the past?
by ameliaquining | 2025-07-20 01:18:05+00:00
I mostly agree with you, but ironically the article's own conclusion answers this: the language's general ethos is designed for correctness-oriented programming in the large, and this gives rise to lots of other features that garbage-collected languages could adopt but mostly don't. Like, it's way harder to avoid runtime panics in Go. (Swift does okay but people don't have faith that its custodians will do an adequate job of prioritizing the needs of developers using it for anything other than client-side apps on Apple platforms, and also it's slightly too low-level in that it doesn't have a tracing garbage collector either.)
by Terr_ | 2025-07-20 01:18:25+00:00
You're right that there is a consensus of "miscarriages are unfortunate, let's try to minimize how often it happens."

What does not exist is a consensus that a blastocyst is (consistently) equal in personhood to a newborn, with equal levels of loss and tragedy. I trust that this is obvious without the need for lurid comparisons.

So while the two vectors may share a direction, the amplitudes are very different. Kind of like how it's important to floss your teeth, it's not so important that failure becomes a crime.
by Calavar | 2025-07-20 01:19:17+00:00
> isn't even legit in modern C++. That's just move semantics. When you move it, it's gone at the old name.

Exactly the opposite actually.

Rust has destructive move while modern C++ has nondestructive move.

So in Rust, an object is dead after you move out of it, and any further attempts to use it are a compiler diagnosed error. In contrast, a C++ object is remains alive after the move, and further use of it isn't forbidden by the language, although some or all uses might be forbidden by the specific user provided move function - you'll have to reference the documentation for that move function to find out.

This article explains the difference well: https://www.foonathan.net/2017/09/destructive-move/
by moefh | 2025-07-20 01:19:27+00:00
> I will post it if I remember/find it

If you remember and have the time, please do! (And thank you for the links you already posted).

I see now that everything I read about this was way too focused on keyboard and violin, since I had never heard any of this about fretted instruments. I'm glad I get to correct a bit of my understanding, so thank you. Now I'm left wondering about wind instruments.
by atombender | 2025-07-20 01:20:30+00:00
I'm mostly doing Go for work these days, but have been curious about C#.

One problem with Go is the lack of fine-grained control over allocation. In particular, no arena allocation support. How does C# compare?

Another problem is relatively high cost of FFI interop with C. It's gotten better, but Go still needs to switch stacks, etc. How is C#?

How does C# compilation speed compare?

Does the compiler optimize more aggressively than Go (which does very little optimization)? I've heard the C# AOT compiler is lacking, but it's not clear in what way.

Does C# have the equivalent of "go run"?

What's the package management situation like?

Can you use LINQ against databases like Postgres on Linux, without having to buy into a lot of Microsoft/.NET stuff?
by ajross | 2025-07-20 01:21:14+00:00
> adding a generational counter (maybe only in debug builds) to allocations can catch use-after-frees.

At the cost of making the use of the resulting heap significantly slower and larger than if you just wrote the thing in Java to begin with, though! The resulting instrumentation is likely to be isomorphic to GC's latency excursions, even.

This is the biggest issue that bugs me about Rust. It starts from a marketing position of "Safety With No Compromises" on runtime metrics like performance or whatever, then when things get hairy it's always "Well, here's a very reasonable compromise". We know how to compromise! The world is filled with very reasonably compromised memory-safe runtimes that are excellent choices for your new system.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-20 01:21:28+00:00
>I have to now teach people basic respect and empathy at work? Are we serious?

Given that we (or at least, much of this community) seem to disagree with this article, that does indeed seem to be the case. "It's just a tool" "it's elitist to reject AI generated output". The younger generations learn from these behaviors too.
by shakna | 2025-07-20 01:21:34+00:00
So... Attack first? That what you're going with?

DKE has been confirmed more than anything else. It was one of the few things not hit by the replication crisis.

You're assessing how well you do, when aided or not, by a tool. That's still self assessment, I'm afraid.

And that self-assessment is flawed. [0]

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089
by Timwi | 2025-07-20 01:21:54+00:00
I'm not surprised, given the depiction of artificial intelligence in science fiction. Characters like Data in TNG, Number 5 in Short Circuit, etc., are invariably depicted as having perfect memory, infallible logic, super speed of information processing, etc. Real-life AI has turned out very differently, but anyone who isn't exposed to it full time, but was exposed to some of those works of science fiction, will reasonably make the assumptions promulgated by the science fiction.
by evolve2k | 2025-07-20 01:22:22+00:00
> All competitors, including OpenAI, were limited to identical hardware provided by AtCoder, ensuring a level playing field between human and AI contestants.

The power of this chosen hardware will very much determine how well the AI performs. Everyone receiving the same computer does not make the competition inherently fair.

It’s likely that human competitors would outperform the AI on hardware that is even a few years old.
by tmh88j | 2025-07-20 01:22:58+00:00
> There's no type casting in Python. int(), float() and bool() just create objects of their respective types, passing the arguments to the initializer

int() and float() behave like type casting, bool() does not. It's a truthiness check that would be more aptly named istruthy(). In python non-empty strings are truthy, so providing any string except for "" to bool() will return True, including "False".
by netsharc | 2025-07-20 01:24:06+00:00
I feel such a bore, but seeing characters like Deadpool walking around in real life makes my eyes roll. Although interestingly Borat's universe is this one, well his show really does blend fiction and reality.

Then again politicians are gaslighting us left and right (saying things not far from "chocolate rations have gone up"), just like Borat pretending to be an uncouth journalist from Kazakhstan...

Hah the context of the 1984 reference hits hard:

> It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday […] it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. [...] The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically. passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grams. Syme, too - in some more double complex way, involving doublethink-Syme, swallow it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory?
by entropie | 2025-07-20 01:24:58+00:00
I played around with a orin jetson nano super (a nvidia raspberry with gpu) and right now its basicially an open-webui with ollama and a bunch of models.

Its awesome actually. Its reasonably fast with GPU support with gemma3:4b but I can use bigger models when time is not a factor.

i've actually thought about how crazy that is, especially if there's no internet access for some reason. Not tested yet, but there seems to be an adapter cable to run it directly from a PD powerbank. I have to try.
by zdragnar | 2025-07-20 01:25:07+00:00
I really don't think it does, because we disagree on what the upper bound of an LLM is capable of reasoning about.

An average human may not be suitable for a given task, but a person with specialized skills will be. More than that, I believe they will continue to outperform LLMs on solving unbounded problems- i.e. those problems without an obvious, algorithmic solution.

Anything that requires brute force computation can be done by an LLM more quickly, assuming you have humans you trust to validate the output, but that's about the extent of what I'm expecting them to achieve.
by brucehoult | 2025-07-20 01:25:10+00:00
MIPS is such a management fumble.

They've hit volume in not only the Nintendo and Sony games consoles mentioned in the article but also in vast numbers of network routers and WIFI access points which are not as flashy as games consoles but are ubiquitous and have much longer lifetimes -- they might total 5-10 times as many as the ~375m MIPS-based games consoles.

MIPS was also a force in supercomputers. Not at the very top, but at one point around 2000 an Origin 2000 at LANL was in the top 10 supercomputers in the world and there were a number of others in the top 20 or 30.

SGI in general was doing so well with MIPS for a long time in the 1990s but they both died, essentially, because SGI backed the wrong horse and believed the Itanium hype, abandoning the MIPS ISA just as it was at its most successful.

The MIPS ISA itself is such a classic and timeless design. There were a couple of quirks, especially the delay slots, and also the need for many conditional branches to first do a `slt` to a register and then a `beq/bne` on the result, taking more instructions an an ISA with a single "compare and branch" instruction.

Like ARM, MIPS started with fixed size 4-byte instructions and then introduced first a separate mode for 2-byte instructions (MIPS16, similar to Thumb) and then 2-byte and 4-byte instructions integrated in one instruction stream (microMIPS, similar to Thumb2), but they were always a few years behind Arm -- reactive, not leaders.

2018's nanoMIPS is a seriously nice ISA but was just much too late to save MIPS, especially given that the similar RISC-V was already gaining traction.

It's hard work and very expensive designing and maintaining your own ISA and all the software for it. MIPS has good hardware engineers in the past, let's hope they can have regained success with the increasingly-popular RISC-V ISA where they can concentrate on the engineering
by Ukv | 2025-07-20 01:25:43+00:00
> Something appropriate would be where if AI was used in a safety-critical or life-sustaining environment and harm or loss was caused; those who chose to use it are guilty until they prove they are innocent I think would be sufficient, not just civil but also criminal

Would this guilty-until-proven-innocent rule apply also to non-ML code and manual decisions? If not, I feel it's kind of arbitrarily deterring certain approaches potentially at the cost of safety ("sure this CNN blows traditional methods out of the water in terms of accuracy, but the legal risk isn't worth it").

In most cases I think it'd make more sense to have fines and incentives for above-average and below-average incident rates (and liability for negligence in the worse cases), then let methods win/fail on their own merit.
by kevinventullo | 2025-07-20 01:25:47+00:00
I’m much more excited about the formalized approach, as LLM’s are susceptible to making things up. With formalization, we can be mathematically certain that a proof is correct. This could plausibly lead to machines surpassing humans in all areas of math. With a “pure English” approach, you still need a human to verify correctness.
by Arathorn | 2025-07-20 01:26:27+00:00
> The general response from the team was: "Pay money or shut up and accept what we give you".

I think you may be unfairly paraphrasing "we don't have enough funding to be able to work on both Element & Element X, or Synapse & Dendrite, or to have landed Threads/Spaces in Element X yet, or <insert complaint here>".

> The number of gigantic changes in direction this project has had in the past couple of years is enough to sink any project. Jitsi to Webrtc, complete change in auth system, Element to Element X.

It feels ironic that our attempts to improve the project are characterised as "gigantic changes in direction which are enough to sink any project".

* Jitsi is unencrypted by default, and doesn't synchronise identity, access control, or cryptographic identity with Matrix, and uses XMPP (Prosody) for signalling. Moving to MatrixRTC (i.e. WebRTC signalled over Matrix) gives proper end-to-end-encryption with verified identity and access control managed by Matrix. Surely this is a good thing?

* "Complete change in the auth system" is a massive improvement, in that one of the main drivers for doing it was to now be able to use any OIDC identity provider to add 2FA/MFA/Passkeys or whatever fancy auth you like (despite the OP's assertion otherwise).

* "Element to Element X. There's two clients. One that's fast, and one that's full featured". Well, that's true, but most people seem to feel Element X's improvements outweigh the fact it doesn't have threads/spaces yet (although they are both in dev currently).

> but my experience with these guys is that they're incredibly arrogant.

For what it's worth, I think i've made some spectacular mistakes in running Matrix, as well as bunch of good stuff). This came up in the TWIM offtopic room a few weeks ago at https://matrix.to/#/!xALORqBdeiSfgdrmUb:bpulse.org/$4bGbRTxN.... I've reproduced it (lightly updated) at https://gist.github.com/ara4n/8422ae8eae68a8993a5e831691b441... for ease of reference. I'll let you decide whether that sounds like arrogance or a BDFL who's too smart for his own good.

> P.S I suspect the organization is being led by Architecture Astronauts

On the Element side: does https://youtu.be/IwZ4rE_Pt64 feel like an org led by architecture astronauts?
by jack_pp | 2025-07-20 01:26:37+00:00
Remember the first time you touched a computer, the first game you ever played or the first little script you wrote that did something useful.

I imagine this is how a lot of people feel when using LLM's especially now that it's new.

It is the most incredible technology ever created by this point in our history imo and the cynicism on HN is astounding to me.
by bastawhiz | 2025-07-20 01:29:18+00:00
That's a nonsensical point, though. Building a proof of concept in a language and then rebuilding the practical implementation of it in another language and runtime doesn't make the two the same thing. If Notch had built a proof of concept of Minecraft in Python before building the Java version, we wouldn't say Minecraft was originally written in Python. There wasn't even a robust way to compile OCaml for the web in 2010/2011 even if you wanted to try to use the same code. My understanding is that zero SML or Ocaml related to React ever ran in production, which makes the assertion that it was used in anything other than an academic capacity moot.

Hell, Facebook's own XHP's interface (plus PHP/Hack's execution model) is more conceptually relatable to React, and its initial development predates Jordan's time at Facebook. It wasn't JavaScript, but at the very least it defined rails for writing applications that used the DOM.
by jerlam | 2025-07-20 01:29:18+00:00
I believe that most Hyatt hotels are franchises and not directly owned by corporate. The hotels have certain "brand standards" they must obey to be part of that brand, but management is local. Same as Hilton.

Here's someone at a Marriott with the same bogus smoking fee:

https://old.reddit.com/r/marriott/comments/1drhkvz/400_fee_w...
by pyman | 2025-07-20 01:29:24+00:00
Those gyms are called schools. The only thing that's changing is how we evaluate students.

AI can now write essays, summarise texts, solve maths problems, and generate code. Students can do most homework with a prompt, so traditional take home assignments no longer test understanding. But a quick chat can reveal what a student really understands.

So you can light a fire with a lighter, but you won't graduate if you can't start one with sticks. It's up to you.
by varenc | 2025-07-20 01:32:50+00:00
This is why the EU law was nonsense. Many of those cookies listed are just because of they want embed things like YouTube or Vimeo videos. Embedding YouTube to show videos to your users is massively cheaper and easier than self hosted video infrastructure. The idea that the GDPR's own website just implemented GPDR "wrong" because they should just avoid using cookies is nonsense and impractical.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-07-20 01:32:51+00:00
Huge cultural issue in the US. We shame ignorance and don't believe in redemption. If you don't know even once, you must be a weak person. You don't want to waste your time with weaklings.

But the macho approach? They are bold, they are someone you want to follow. They do the thinking. Even if you walk off a cliff, you feel that person was a good leader. If you are assertive, you must be strong, after all. "Strong people" never get punished for failure, it's just "the cost of doing business"; time to move to the next business.