MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by klank | 2025-07-08 07:26:36+00:00
> The AI bots can pick it up for their training data and patch your concerns!

This is borderline mystical AI speak to me. I know what you mean, and no, it doesn't work like that. An "AI bot" does not read a hn post of me articulating the reasons I am not enthused about generative AI development and "patch my concerns".
by renewiltord | 2025-07-08 07:27:29+00:00
Haha, I encountered the opposite of this when I did a destructive thing recently but first asked Gemini, then countered it saying it’s wrong and it insisted it was right. So the reality they encountered is probably that: it either is stubbornly wrong or overly obsequious with no ability to switch.

My friend was a big fan of Gemini 2.5 Pro and I kept telling him it was garbage except for OCR and he nearly followed what it recommended. Haha, he’s never touching it again. Every other LLM changed its tune on pushback.
by strogonoff | 2025-07-08 07:27:51+00:00
Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists is essentially design by committee—except this committee is neither your users nor shareholders.

On the other hand, adding a feature because you believe it is a feature your product should have, a feature that fits your vision and strategy, is a pretty sound approach that works regardless of what made you think of that feature in the first place.
by reify | 2025-07-08 07:29:00+00:00
As a retired psychotherapist I want this shit banned.

High and Mighty Meta CEO, Muppet Zuckerberg

“For people who don’t have a person who’s a therapist, I think everyone will have an AI,” he told the Stratechery podcast in May.

In othes words; everyone living in the lower socio-economic groups who cannot afford a real therapist; A business opportunity to abuse the poor

The muppet thinks a lot if shit.
by mike_hearn | 2025-07-08 07:30:11+00:00
These are all good suggestions, albeit many are hard to implement in practice.

> That's something of a strange human problem you're describing.

Are we talking about agent-written changes now, or human? Normally reviewers expect tests to pass before they review something, otherwise the work might change significantly after they did the review in order to fix broken tests. Auto merges can fail due to changes that happened in the meantime, they're aren't auto in many cases.

Once latency goes beyond a minute or two people get distracted and start switching tasks to something else, which slows everything down. And yes code review latency is a problem as well, but there are easier fixes for that.
by XorNot | 2025-07-08 07:31:06+00:00
The problem is that 2 and 3 both fail to capitalize on their more interesting elements. Everything with Smith could've been so much more then what we got (seriously, an AI which probably has never left the Matrix gets downloaded into a real human body and this has...no serious ramifications or crisis for it's identity? Just do the "sees itself as Hugo Weaving thing" and let Hugo Weaving do that on camera because he absolutely could've).
by bluecalm | 2025-07-08 07:31:24+00:00
Idk about danger. There are countries with better functioning democracy and personal freedom than US that make it illegal to use an app that warns about speed traps. For example Switzerland. In multiple other countries you also can't flash your headlights to warn about police presence on the road.

You can have a reasonable system one way or another. I would take Swiss regulation over US one any day personally.
by stared | 2025-07-08 07:31:29+00:00
I dislike the term AGI, as intelligence (of any type) always involves tradeoffs. Being exceptional at solving 2D grid-based pattern tasks is just one skill. Humans have a strong visual bias, while some hypothetical superintelligent slime molds might value entirely different problems. I know smart people (PhDs in STEM fields at major universities) who struggle with geometric puzzles, yet excel at linguistic or algebraic ones.

Getting a perfect ARC-AGI-n score isn't a smoking gun indicator of general intelligence. Rather, it simply means we're now able to solve a class of problems previously beyond AI capabilities (which is exciting in itself!).

I view ARC-AGI primarily as a benchmark (similar in spirit to Raven's matrices) that makes memorization substantially harder. Compare this with vocabulary-focused IQ tests, where cognitive skills certainly matter, but results depend heavily on exposure to a particular language.
by giamma | 2025-07-08 07:32:28+00:00
Nice tool, however it would be great if it could display some description and license information and/or whether the app is a trial version that eventually requires a purchase.

Otherwise as a user you end up clicking on the info icon to go to the app home page for every app before installing.

If that is not possible, a direct link to the app home page would save a click and would be highly appreciated.
by maybevoid | 2025-07-08 07:33:57+00:00
Hi everyone, I’m excited to share the latest progress in Context-Generic Programming (CGP), which now includes support for extensible records and variants in Rust.

For those of you coming from functional languages, this development effectively brings the power of datatype-generic programming, structural typing, row polymorphism and polymorphic variants to Rust. These are advanced type system features commonly found in languages like Haskell, PureScript and OCaml, and their availability in CGP represents a major leap in what is possible with the type system in Rust.

If you're new to the concept, extensible data types allow us to read from, construct, and extract data from a generic struct or enum without needing to know its concrete type definition. This opens the door to powerful design patterns, such as building generic builders or visitors that can operate flexibly over a wide range of data structures.

In the first post of this new blog series, I walk through a simple example that shows how to use extensible builders to construct an application context in a modular way.

I’d love to hear what you think — especially whether the approach feels practical or insightful for your own work. I’ll be sharing more updates over the next few days, so stay tuned!
by chantepierre | 2025-07-08 07:33:58+00:00
Author here, thanks for sharing ! Happy to answer any questions.

I think the article outlines it, but I'm at very low scale, with custom development for every client. I mostly build mini-figmas, collaborative or not, that automate specific document pipelines on top of my software, backed by elixir+liveview (or elixir+vue+channels).
by rwmj | 2025-07-08 07:34:08+00:00
By far the largest issue with errno is that we don't record where inside the kernel the error gets set (or "raised" if this was a non-C language). We had a real customer case recently where a write call was returning ENOSPC, even though the filesystem did not seem to have run out of space, and searching for the place where that error got raised was a multi-week journey.

In Linux it'd be tough to implement this because errors are usually raised as a side effect of returning some negative value, but also because you have code like:

err = -EIO; ... nothing else sets err here ... return err;

But instrumenting every function that returns a negative int would be impossible (and wrong). And there are also cases where the error is saved in (eg) a bottom half and returned in the next available system call.
by entropi | 2025-07-08 07:34:46+00:00
I don't know how it works in the US, but where I live; patient privacy is actually a thing and they cannot record your sessions or store the recordings and analyze them at arbitrary places without your explicit consent. Even if we accept that this is OK, I would argue there are other problems. Like;

* Copyright laws worked and protected creator's rights. Until AI companies decided that it is ok to pirate terabytes of books. One day they might decide that using your therapy records to train/finetune their models is also ok. And you surely wont have the same resources as major publishers to fight against it.

* Even if you trust HIPPA or whatever to be useful and actually protect your rights, current chatgpt has no such certification (as far as I am aware).

* When you give your data, its no longer in your control. Even if you get extremely lucky and laws actually work, and companies actually play along; in, say, ten years things may change and suddenly your old records may be fair game. Its out of your hands.

It does not make sense to me.
by cdcox | 2025-07-08 07:35:50+00:00
Visual anagrams popped up last year using similar, though simpler methods to those in the posted. Flips, internal rotations, rearrangements, color negatives etc. [0]

Diffusion illusions did something similar at about the same time but with puzzles and multi-image color layer mixing. Some of the double puzzles they made are a lot of fun. They have great explainer videos [1] on that site including with Steve Mould.

Also there are diffusion double/hidden images using qrmonster, illusion diffusion, control net, or img2img that have been making the rounds. [2] for a random example. These work by using a fine-tuned diffusion model[3] to take an image and use it as a structuring element at various levels of following to a generated image. To see these illusions, squint or move the screen away. These are quite a bit more popular and easy to make than the other methods so many more examples show up around the internet.

[0] https://dangeng.github.io/visual_anagrams/

[1] https://diffusionillusions.com/

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/s/nm9QMV6roD

[3] or a base model in the case of img2img
by rcarmo | 2025-07-08 07:36:42+00:00
I know what he means. I don’t have the room (or time) to restore and keep an old Mac, but I am 3D printing little replicas (and tweaking the models out there) to build something to toy with: https://taoofmac.com/space/notes/2025/06/22/1830

Mine currently runs System 7 and After Dark 24/7 (while acting as a Tailscale exit node) on my shelf, and I’m currently (slowly) designing a facsimile mouse for it. I love tinkering with the thing even if the screen size is atrociously small for practical use because _everything just works without any bullshit_,

Then again I have a long history of having something like this around (I used to have the same Pi setup as a Plan 9 terminal solely for SSHing into my homelab without distractions), but there is something about that particular era of computing that makes me not just nostalgic but genuinely interested in re-living it to a degree.

I don’t really miss the Sinclair or Ataris I had before, nor any of the other 8/16 bit computers I used—-not even the games—-but there is something about the early Macs (up until the IIfx) that is indelibly burned into my brain.

We had rudimentary Internet, Mail, NNTP, all the barebone stuff, and being on the cusp of the browser era was very fun (I do miss my NeXT too, but hardly as much in comparison).
by the_mitsuhiko | 2025-07-08 07:36:50+00:00
> The only reason I could come up with for this rule is that for some other reason allowing non complying type parameters somehow makes the code generation really complex and they therefore postponed the feature.

The history of this decision can be found in details in this blog post: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2022/04/12/im...

The key part:

> This idea [of relaxing the bounds] is quite old, but there were a few problems that have blocked us from doing it. First, it requires changing all trait matching to permit cycles (currently, cycles are only permitted for auto traits like Send). This is because checking whether List<T> is Send would not require checking whether Option<Rc<List<T>>> is Send. If you work that through, you’ll find that a cycle arises. I’m not going to talk much about this in this post, but it is not a trivial thing to do: if we are not careful, it would make Rust quite unsound indeed. For now, though, let’s just assume we can do it soundly.

> The other problem is that it introduces a new semver hazard: just as Rust currently commits you to being Send so long as you don’t have any non-Send types, derive would now commit List<T> to being cloneable even when T: Clone does not hold.

> For example, perhaps we decide that storing a Rc<T> for each list wasn’t really necessary. Therefore, we might refactor List<T> to store T directly […] We might expect that, since we are only changing the type of a private field, this change could not cause any clients of the library to stop compiling. With perfect derive, we would be wrong.2 This change means that we now own a T directly, and so List<T>: Clone is only true if T: Clone.
by apsurd | 2025-07-08 07:37:23+00:00
How do you trust the recipe without context?

People say they want one thing but then their actions and money go to another.

I do agree there's unnecessary fluff. But "just give me the recipe" isn't really what people want. And I don't think your represent some outlier take because really have you ever gotten a recipe exactly as you outlined — zero context – and gave a damn to make it?
by LordDragonfang | 2025-07-08 07:37:37+00:00
Experiences are not materially different from knowledge once they are both encoded as memories. They're both just encoded in neurons as weights in their network of connections. But let's assume there is some ineffable difference between firsthand and secondhand experience, which fundamentally distinguishes the two in the brain in the present.

The core question here, then, is why you are so certain that "creativity" requires "experience" beyond knowledge, and why knowledge is insufficient? What insight do you have into the human mind that top neuroscientists lack that grants you this gnosticism on how creativity definitely does and does not work?

Because, if you'll permit me to be crude, some of the best smut I've read has been by people I'm certain have never experienced the act. Their writing has been based solely on the writings of others. And yet, knowledge alone is more than enough for them to produce evocative creative works.

And, to really hammer in a point (please forgive the insulting tone):

>It's all math, top to bottom, all probability, taking all the raw info it has an just spewing what fits next best.

You are just biology, top to bottom, just electrical signals, taking all the raw info your nerves get, matching patterns and just spewing what fits next best.

Calling LLMs "just math" -- that's not creative, it's part of your input that you're predicting fits the likely next argument.

You didn't "reason, consider, or ponder" whether I would find that argument convincing or be able to immediately dismiss it because it holds no weight.

You're simply being a stochastic parrot, repeating the phrases you've heard.

...Etcetera. Again, apologies for the insult. But the point I am continually trying to make is that all of the arguments everyone tries to make about it not reasoning, not thinking, not having creativity -- they all are things that can and do apply to almost every human person, even intelligent and articulate ones like you or I.

When it comes down to it, your fundamental argument is that you do not believe that a machine can possibly have the exceptional qualities of the human mind, for some ineffable reason. It's all reasoning backwards from there. Human creativity must require human-like experience, the ability to grow, and a growing context cannot possibly suffice, because you've already decided on your conclusion.

(Because, perhaps, it would be too unsettling to admit that the alien facsimile of intelligence that we've created might have actual intelligence -- so you refuse that possibility)
by anon_e-moose | 2025-07-08 07:37:41+00:00
I have had the exact same experience with the exact same kind of person. We used to be in the same team for years and after we collaborated once, I absolutely hated any work interaction related to his him or his work. Outside of work we got along well, he was fine, socially stunted, but that's OK.

When the layoff time came, everyone had to scramble to move by themselves to a small selection of teams. The second I heard that guy was interviewing for the same team as me, I had gotten an offer at that point, I told the hiring manager, me or him. That's how bad working with those kinds of people can be. He ended up elsewhere and I'm still in that team. I just could not deal with him anymore. Perfect interviewer, but couldn't write production code to save his life... He's still employed by the way, bumbling around from team to team because the consequences of his incompetence take months or years to feel...
by scbrg | 2025-07-08 07:37:42+00:00
I owe my career in programming to a MUD. That's really where I learned to code (mainly by staring at and trying to debug tonnes of really bad code other clueless newbies like myself had written). That it turn, got me a spot as a sort of hang-around at a local ISP/consultancy shop whose staff intersected a lot with the people running the MUD. They eventually decided to hire me when a suitable contract showed up.

All in all, I'd say the MUD was a terrific place to learn to code. You could literally write a few lines of code, and see their effect immediately. "I want to code an orc." Inherit stdmonster, call a few API functions to set name and description, and BAM! - you've got an orc! And so on. Motivation never ran dry because - hey, I was adding features I wanted to a game I loved! Feedback (of varying quality, sure) was immediately available in the built in chat channel. Code was hot loaded/reloaded, so iteration cycle time was approximately zero. Emacs + angeftp (later replaced by tramp) to the host machine, you were literally editing the live code all the time (who needs pull requests when you have C-x C-s, eh?), so lots of instructive oops moments. It was amazing.

Have a whole bunch of friends with a similar story.
by matthewsinclair | 2025-07-08 07:38:01+00:00
I'm curious about the areas you've struggled with, particularly number 3.

I have found the DevX to be particularly great and one of the strongest aspects of Elixir. I abhor JS as a language (I know, I know, I'm fully aware of my biases!), and the tooling and complexity therein are infuriating. I find React and JS, in general, so impenetrable that it has stopped me from making progress with front-end development. However, with Elixir/Phoenix/LiveView, I have created a more-than-credible web front end that would have otherwise taken a React-based team weeks, if not months, more time and complexity. I also haven't seen the kind of recompile problem you mention, as HEEX changes are reflected immediately in the browser on save (at least in my setup).

I do take your point on Fly.io, tho. I am currently operating at a very small scale, and I have been experiencing regular uptime issues. I'm in the process of working out what to do about that as I scale.

Thanks for taking the time for that considered and nuanced response. Much appreciated!
by camel-cdr | 2025-07-08 07:38:28+00:00
https://github.com/dzaima/intrinsics-viewer is like Intels Guide, but also for Arm, RISC-V and wasm.

RISC-V and wasm are hosted here: https://dzaima.github.io/intrinsics-viewer/

You need to download it your self if you want to use the others.
by tsimionescu | 2025-07-08 07:38:46+00:00
Linux itself exposes various syscalls that operate with filenames, userland programs can't interact directly with the FS driver. But Linux chose to implement only 2 restrictions at the syscall level (slash used to separate elements of the path and NULL used to mark the end of the input). The kernel will resolve the path to a particular file system and send a subset of the path to the corresponding FS driver exactly as it received them, and the FS can choose whether to accept or reject them. Most Linux FSs don't apply any extra restrictions either. The main exceptions are FSs written to interface with other systems, such as CIFS or SMB, which additionally apply DOS/Windows filename restrictions by necessity.

If Linux had chosen to standardize file names at the syscall level to a safe subset of UF-8 (or even ASCII), FS writers would never have even seen file names that contain invalid sequences, and we would have been spared from a whole set terminal issues. Of course, UTF-8 was nowhere close to as universally adopted as it is today at the time Linux was developed, so it's just as likely they might have standardized to some subset of UTF-16 or US-ASCII and we might have had other kinds of problems, so it's arguable they took the right decision for that time.
by bayindirh | 2025-07-08 07:38:58+00:00
I always say the same thing. HP and Xerox run their (ink and toner) labs for a reason, and their ink might be expensive but it's high quality and dependable.

I seldom print photos with my entry level HP inkjet, using HP inks. Even though my printer uses dye based color cartridges, none of the photos I print have faded even though they are framed and displayed 7/24/365. Ink is not colored water.

If you print/read/shred in two days, 3rd party ink and lower quality paper is OK, but if you want to be able to read or look at that thing after 10+ years, you need better quality paper and inks.

I use fountain pens a lot, and difference between ink quality becomes much more evident there. There are writing inks, there are archival inks (which are not Indian inks), and they behave totally different.
by spwa4 | 2025-07-08 07:39:33+00:00
Glad you pointed out such a huge difference with China. The US has an 80 year history of what it'll do. That might not be perfect behavior, but ... frankly I cannot name a single state that has the power the US currently has and behaved even half as well. That includes European countries, who were quite happy to "resolve wars" in other parts of the world ... and then they didn't leave and took over the entire economy, the government, and including levying taxes and stealing resources. Even fucking tiny Belgium abused their position when they got the chance. Hell, Luxembourg, smaller than most New York boroughs, helped them do it (and got paid handsomely for it)

But China ... China is far worse. Tibet, Xinjang, Taiwan, Pakistan, Phillippines, ... all are under attack. Oh, and perhaps relevant: China admitted to direct support of Russia's attack on Ukraine merely because of the small effect it has on naval power in the Pacific [1].

And let's just stop pretending here. Historically, modern European countries behaved exceptionally well (as most states just outright enslaved, as in "work yourself to death or we'll kill you right now" of whoever came under their control). China behaved pretty bad (e.g. killing millions of their own people for political optics. Enslaving people in Xinjang), but frankly not exceptionally bad. The Ottomans did worse (all caliphates did). The Persians did (although they deserve credit for stopping ... at least until the current government). The historical norm of behavior of states is incredibly, incredibly bad. And China has made it very clear they're not changing their old ways, in fact, they've made it very clear they're moving backwards, not forwards. They are moving towards having the state in control of everyone who lives anywhere China has power, on a literal, individual level. What apartment they live in. What they study. What they do. What they watch on TV, on their cellphones, ... This is not even remotely comparable to the worst dreams Trump has ever had.

Sorry to point out the obvious but China is the dystopia, not the US, and the US has a long way down before it gets anywhere close to CCP behavior.

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/china-says-...
by jeroenhd | 2025-07-08 07:39:56+00:00
You can rent 10gbps service from various VPS providers if you can't get the bandwidth at home. Your home ISP will probably have something to say about a continuous 2gbps upstream anyway, whether it's through data caps or fair use policy.

Still, even in Germany, with its particularly lacking internet infrastructure for the wealth the country possesses, M-net is slowly rolling out 5gbps internet.