MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by azath92 | 2025-07-03 14:13:32+00:00
Yes us to! I spend heaps of time playing with the link between preferences and the profile.

We aren't really sure yet how best to surface _why_ the model predicts what it does. You can hover over the skim label and there is a bit of reasoning text, which might shed some light on why for now. We will think more about how to make these relationships more clear in the process of tightening them up and generally improving them.

Once the relationships are a bit more clear theres probably the 80/20 rule of work to tighten up those predictions.
by gitgud | 2025-07-03 14:14:03+00:00
1. Already true, no company will make the AI agent liable for its output, it’s always the programmer

2. Unlikely, as most software won’t result in death/injury… whereas a structural engineering project is much more life threatening.

3. I actually think entry level engineers will be expected to ramp up to productive levels much much quicker due to the help of AI

4. Already true
by kristoff_it | 2025-07-03 14:14:04+00:00
> Zig's handling of unused variables seems like an unforgivably bad design choice to me. Its been raised by the community plenty of times. Why hasn't it been fixed?

Because yours is just an opinion. It's perfectly legitimate to not like unused variable errors, but its factually wrong to say that no one wants it. You're just yucking somebody else's yum.

> But does he seriously not have any smart people around him who he trusts who can talk him out of this design?

He does, most of them also like unused variable errors. For what it's worth, I do too.
by sorcercode | 2025-07-03 14:14:07+00:00
_about 2 years back. I pushed back hard with a similar argument but I have since come around._

I think the premise is true that writing code was never the "main" bottleneck but like any power tool, when wielded by the right person, it can blow past bottlenecks.

many of these arguments,only assume the case of an inexperienced engineer blindly pumping out and merging code. I concede the problems in this case.

but put this to test with more experienced engineers. how has/does it change their workflows? the results (I've personally observed) are exponentially different.

---

> LLMs reduce the time it takes to produce code, but they haven’t changed the amount of effort required to reason about behavior, identify subtle bugs, or ensure long-term maintainability.

I have to strongly disagree here. this argument doesn't apply universally. I've actually found LLMs to make it easier to understand large swaths of code, faster. especially in larger codebases that have legacy code that no one has worked on or dared to touch. LLMs bring an element of fearlessness, which makes it easier to effect change.
by larntz | 2025-07-03 14:14:26+00:00
> Your secrets are not safe from someone if someone needs them to run your code.

This is true. I don't disagree with that or you're assessment of repo secrets.

My comment was in the context of the grandparent committing secrets to a private repo which is a bad practice (regardless of visibility). You could do that for tests, sure (I would suggestion creating random secrets for each test when you can), but then you're creating a bad habit. If you can't use random secrets for tests repo secrets would be acceptable, but I wouldn't use them beyond that.

For CI and deploys I would opt for some kind of secret manager. CI can be run on your own infrastructure, secret managers can be run on your own infrastructure, etc...

But somewhere in the stack secret(s) will be exposed to _someone_.
by pastk | 2025-07-03 14:15:15+00:00
Talking about the app features, here are some of the bigger / easier to notice differences:

- added automatic backups for bookmarks and tracks

- added 100m-step altitude isolines to all regions that had worse or no isolines

- a big rework of the map colors - lighter, warmer, friendlier

- add a setting to customize the leftmost button or hide it

- removed semi-transparent background in Subway layer

And there is a bunch of smaller changes, for details check the release notes: https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/releases
Ask HN: Why isn't there a universal tool for exporting/transferring our data?
by moystard | 2025-07-03 14:15:28+00:00
I've been thinking about data portability and wondering why we don't have a comprehensive open-source tool that lets users export/import/transfer their data from any online service, regardless of whether the service supports it.

The problem: We generate massive amounts of data across dozens of services (Spotify, Google Drive, Letterboxd, Instagram, fitness apps, etc.), but moving between services is either impossible or requires technical expertise. While GDPR gives us the right to our data, exercising that right is often impractical.

What I'm envisioning:

- A community-driven tool that works like youtube-dl but for personal data - Plugin architecture where anyone can contribute extractors - Uses official APIs when available, web scraping when not - Transforms data into common formats for easy migration - Runs locally - your credentials and data never leave your machine

The idea would be to move from small independent projects that are often unmaintained to a community-driven platform.

Current solutions, like the [Data Transfer Initiative](https://dtinit.org), require provider cooperation and manual operations. There are no universal and automated solutions.

High level technical approach: CLI tool with plugins as git repos (similar to Homebrew), sandboxed execution, common schemas for data transformation.

My questions:

1. Why doesn't something like this already exist? Legal concerns? Technical complexity? Lack of interest? 2. Would you actually use such a tool? 3. What services lock in your data that you'd love to escape from? 4. Any ethical/legal concerns with this approach? 5. Are there similar projects I'm missing?

Just curious if others feel this pain point and whether the open-source community would rally around such a project.
by southernplaces7 | 2025-07-03 14:15:36+00:00
>There’s that and of course the sheer lack of people who live in that vast wilderness larger than Sweden.

If you're referring to just Northern Quebec, then sure, the area is maybe a bit larger than Sweden, but if you're referring to northern canada, meaning all of its territories above the provinces, then that's a whole different thing. You could fit much off central and western Europe into that region with room to spare.
by danaris | 2025-07-03 14:17:10+00:00
It's not just the labor, though.

It's the supply chains.

Want to build electronics? You'll need a variety of parts and raw materials that China and its surrounding countries produce, and the US doesn't*.

Want to make clothing? You'll need many different fabrics, buttons, zippers, dyes, etc that China and its surrounding countries produce, and the US doesn't*.

Want to make toys? You'll need plastics, dyes, injection-molding processes, etc that China and its surrounding countries produce or provide, and the US doesn't*.

And this goes all the way back to the mining, the farming, and the refining. The US just doesn't do these things*, even in the cases where we actually have the natural resources here.

This is all way before you even get to the point of engaging with China's skilled manufacturing workforce. (Because yes: these jobs do require skills; you can't just walk in off the street with zero prior experience or training and be correctly assembling widgets or sewing garments within the hour.)

* To counter pedants: Yes, the US may produce some small amounts of some of these things. But we don't produce them at anything like the scale required to ramp up full-on mass production of anything that relies on them to supply the demand of the entire country.
by cardanome | 2025-07-03 14:17:14+00:00
Yeah that is why I wrote:

> Doesn't mean that progress is inherently bad

Progress is inevitable. And while it leads to short term suffering it does also lead to higher standards of living or at least it can.

Still, the claim that tech would safe us from the "mundane" tasks and would allow us to focus more and more on creative and fun work is often claimed but never fulfilled.

Especially we software devs seem to be complete suckers for that kind of thinking always searching for that silver bullet, the new hot framework, the new language, the new way to deploy servers, the complete rewrite that will make everything better. No, it wont.
by gk1 | 2025-07-03 14:17:14+00:00
I only noticed a few times when she brought up age, and all of them were natural and appropriate in the context. Eg she was asked how old she was when she opened the dry-cleaning business.

Also, there’s this weird thing in culture (is it US only?) that whenever an interviewer brings up (even implicitly) the guest’s age, the guest has to make some quip about it as if they’re offended or sensitive to it. So I wouldn’t interpret even a slightly defensive comment about age as an “obsession.”
by antonoo | 2025-07-03 14:17:16+00:00
Lovable (https://lovable.dev) | Stockholm + NY + London + hybrid | Full-Time | Product+Research Engineers

We’re a small team caring deeply about building a product that move people’s lives. Currently, 70,000 new apps are started every day with lovable, many of them becoming real businesses that earn people’s livelihood.

You would work with a highly talent-dense team of previous founders, CTO:s, Physicists, with many problems to solve as we are scaling towards reaching $100m ARR faster than any other startup.

We’re looking for:

- Product Engineers

- Research Engineers

Read more and apply at: https://lovable.dev/careers
by jajko | 2025-07-03 14:17:26+00:00
Its cheap to write some code, but still big software projects cost massive amounts of cash, take forever and are often a failure. There are visible bugs or at least big missteps in design in literally all software I use - Windows OS, Office, browsers and specific webs like ebanking, desktop apps. I dare say making software work well consistently is not a skill thats easy to acquire.

Also "solve important business problems at scale" - thats an extremely narrow mostly SV-based view on how most software out there is built, no company I ever worked for in past 20 years across 3 countries ever needed that from me nor anybody around. I'd say a junior view but that would ruffle some feathers. Seniors talk about team and client and budget communication, processes, delivery pipelines, support etc.

Lets put it this way - real world is a tad more complex than your simplification make it look like.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-07-03 14:18:19+00:00
I still don't get it. Are you saying that we also shouldn't send weapons to Ukraine because there is a real threat that they will end up in the enemy's hands? Or are you saying we should definitely send weapons because the opposite is a guaranteed regime change? It's kind of a lose-lose from a US POV (just like Turkey) and it still misses the actual point: Both Ukraine and Turkey will do anything to achieve their goals, they don't care what it takes to get there, even if it comes at enormous cost to their own population.
by bayindirh | 2025-07-03 14:18:45+00:00
Doesn't matter. I'm not hiding where I live or my nationality. It's intended to be composable. But making it composable and putting it plain and center are different things. My intention is not to hide, but to sound as neutral as possible, because my intention was to give an example, independent of the country name. If I knew other examples from other countries equally well, I'd happily add those, without the country names, too.

On the other hand, when you click some of the links in my homepage, it becomes pretty evident that I don't live in Germany. So, if somebody cares to check my homepage's server's geolocation, I expect them to check a couple of links, too.

So, the thing I was pointing that my homepage's server's location doesn't imply anything about where I live or the conditions of my life. I'm not bothered that somebody figured out my nationality, which country I'm talking about, etc.

I'm just baffled how somebody can make that amount of false assumptions from an IP address. Plain and simple.
by PaulHoule | 2025-07-03 14:19:12+00:00
(1) Assuming Starship makes it to orbit, it enables a range of structures larger than the ISS but smaller than the O'Neill colonies. A mission to Luna or Mars involves 12-20 launches of fuel tankers, for the same cost you can put up a lot of mass to LEO. A really flashy space hotel seems practical, as would simulation environments for Lunar, Mars and Asteroidal technology development.

(2) O'Neill colonies with large airspaces seem impractical because you'd need large amounts of nitrogen or some other inert gas: you can find oxide rocks everywhere in space but pure oxygen environments aren't safe. On the other hand, the atmosphere for an LEO baby Bernal sphere would be about 15 Starship loads and probably worth it for the visual appeal.

(3) The later work of O'Neill's students focused a lot on manufacturing. The proposal to build large structures by vapor deposition of metals onto a balloon still looks feasible. The solar power satellites shrank considerably in mass and it seemed that they could be built more practically from terrestrial materials.

(4) Any space colonization effort runs into the problem that it needs to be self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing (especially Mars) which led Eric Drexler to go off and develop his vision of molecular assemblers. Drexler's proposals haven't aged well but something equivalent that combines 3-d printing with flow chemistry, synthetic biology, fermentation and other technologies is probably possible -- and I think is the critical path. That flashy space hotel, however, really is about rocketry and space assembly of large structures which really is the unique application of space manufacturing; I don't think space manufacturing can ever be competitive for the terrestrial market but it can be competitive for things that can only be made in space.

(5) Colonization of Ceres dominates all other space colonization opportunities in the solar system because there is no shortage of water and no shortage of nitrogen. It seems possible to take the whole thing apart and build a colony with more floor space and a larger population than Earth. You don't get the 0.2 cubic kilometers of ocean that we get, but I think you can culture all the fish you can eat anyway.
by shkurski_ | 2025-07-03 14:19:15+00:00
Location: Germany

Remote: yes, only

Willing to relocate: no

Technologies: C++, C, Rust, Assembly, Python, JS

Résumé/CV: https://shkur.ski/cv.pdf

Email: dima [:at:] shkur.ski

Offer: my expertise in building desktop applications, device management, high-performance systems and more. I worked on products deployed on 10sM machines, both implementation and architecture level. In different environments: from large companies to seed stage startups (incl. YC-backed and own products).

For the past few years: LLM/semantic search applied in the productivity space. Built from scratch and tested with users a bunch of MVPs around the idea of proactive user interfaces: https://shkur.ski/notai

Open work permit: Germany, Canada. Worldwide as a B2B contractor and/or part-time involvement possible.
by gortok | 2025-07-03 14:19:37+00:00
That’s the bug, that the rear view camera stayed on when I shifted into drive until I manually closed it. I could reproduce that bug reliably, leaving me to believe it’s just not a big deal to the manufacturer to fix.

Also, just because you’re unable to crash the infotainment system doesn’t mean no one is, or that it’s hard to crash.
by mjburgess | 2025-07-03 14:21:28+00:00
The issuing I'm addressing isn't whether its possible to define man/woman in a way that makes these just presentational terms -- but whether that's what people actually mean, or have always meant.

It doesn't really make sense to me to say that "this is what people have always meant", nor much sense to say today, "most people mean this". We can change the terms, or adopt a kinda rhetorical practice where we don't use them literally, but its hard to imagine that's what most people have meant in most usages of these terms.

It rubs people up the wrong way when people try to tell others what their words mean in order to win an argument, so it comes across as bad-faith/manipulative to assert that this is what people mean. The reason i use pensions as an example is just because its neutral and specific, but people use man/woman in exactly those ways all the time.

It's straightforward to have an open argument about how to integrate people into society who present-as-women (, -as-men) etc. whether/when these class of people should be treated as-if a part of the relevant sexual class. But this requires giving arguments, being understanding of people who are sceptical, trying to persuade people, etc.

It comes across bad faith when people try to say, instead, "the very words you're using already mean i'm right" -- not only isnt this a very plausible account of the history of the terms, or of what people using them intend them to mean, it's alienating to people who would otherwise be quite tolerant. It turns a discussion of how to change society to be accepting into one about how everyone is profoundly mistaken about the words they use, and control over the meaning of these words "really" lies with others, who have happened to define them in ways that make most common thoughts about the issue incoherent.

Fyi, i dont think you are doing that -- ie., acting in bad faith. i'm just explaining why it rubs people the wrong way
by alectroem | 2025-07-03 14:21:37+00:00
Ya I've had basically this question for a while. My assumption is that most of the time people search the internet to answer questions they DONT know the answer to.

If an LLM gives you a response to that question, how do you know if its right or wrong without already knowing the answer or verifying it some other way? Is everyone just assuming the ai answers are right a majority of the time? Have there been large scale verification of a wide variety of questions that I'm not aware of?
by clfdev | 2025-07-03 14:21:52+00:00
heya, author of the blog post here. the op6 happens to work but it's limited to debugging in el1, if you do manage to trap in el2 all the registers read 0

the reason this works at all on this production device is because oneplus screwed up and shipped a "debug profile" in production. this is a vendor signed elf (flashed to the dpdb partition or something like that) containing configuration to enable certain debugging features.

the one we already know about is crashdump mode, the op6 will crashdump when you trigger an XPU violation or some kinds of bus abort, then you can dump the entire RAM and you dont even need to authenticate (no firehose just run bkerlers edl.py)

this has come in handy for mainline development a few times heh

but it seems that this profile also enables EUD which is super nice, that said i didnt manage to get breakpoints working at all yet....
by danaris | 2025-07-03 14:21:59+00:00
...This is what a QA department is for.

Like, they've been slashed and outsourced and devalued to death over the past several years, but QA is a vital part of the lifecycle of professional software.

And it's not something you can just toss at a bunch of unpaid interns and expect them to do a good job. Being able to properly test software is a valuable skill—and it's one I respect all the more because I don't have it.
by simonw | 2025-07-03 14:22:12+00:00
Something I've realized about LLM tool use is that it means that if you can reduce a problem to something that can be solved by an LLM in a sandbox using tools in a loop, you can brute force that problem.

The job then becomes identifying those problems and figuring out how to configure a sandbox for them, what tools to provide and how to define the success criteria for the model.

That still takes significant skill and experience, but it's at a higher level than chewing through that problem using trial and error by hand.

My assembly Mandelbrot experiment was the thing that made this click for me: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/2/mandelbrot-in-x86-assem...
by hearsathought | 2025-07-03 14:22:14+00:00
Did you even read my comment? I'm not talking about your brain's ability. I'm talking about how a device can interpret your brain signals and transfer it to another brain to have actual communication when both brains essentially have their own internal "language". How your brain "stores" the idea of tree is entirely different from how I "store" the idea of a tree. Different neurons, different location in the brain and different signals. Do you know computers, networks and communications work? It's all bound by artificial standards we agreed upon a priori.

The only way I see is by textual or auditory mechanism between people who speak the same language ( standards agreed upon a priori ). But that wouldn't be brain to brain. It would be brain to text/speech to eyes/ears to brain.
by jordanb | 2025-07-03 14:22:16+00:00
"End of Europe" as a coherent entity that's willing and able to look after its own interests. Even as Ukrainians die in the meat grinder and Germany is lauded as Ukraine's best friend in Europe, millions of dollars of dual-use technology products from Germany continue to transship into Russia via Kazakhstan. Imagine if it was 1942 and Britain was still shipping millions of dollars of weapons components into Germany via Sweden or Switzerland?
by timschmidt | 2025-07-03 14:22:20+00:00
> Now make that multi-threaded code exhaust a 32 core desktop system

Switching an iter to par_iter does this. So long as there are enough iterations to work through, it'll exhaust 1024 cores or more.

> all the time, not only at peak execution.

What are you doing that keeps a desktop or phone at 100% utilization? That kind of workload exists in datacenters, but end user devices are inherently bursty. Idle when not in use, race to idle while in use.

> As brownie points, keep the GPU busy as well... Even more points if the CPU happens to have a NPU or integrated FPGA

In a recent project I serve a WASM binary from an ESP32 via Wifi / HTTP, which makes use of the GPU via WebGL to draw the GUI, perform CSG, calculate toolpaths, and drip feed motion control commands back to the ESP. This took about 12k lines of Rust including the multithreaded CAD library I wrote for the project, only a couple hundred lines of which are gated behind the "parallel" feature flag. It was way less work than the inferior C++ version I wrote as part of the RepRap project 20 years ago. Hence my stance that software has become increasingly sophisticated.

https://github.com/timschmidt/alumina-firmware

https://github.com/timschmidt/alumina-ui

https://github.com/timschmidt/csgrs

What's your point?
by kiba | 2025-07-03 14:22:37+00:00
Progress isn't inevitable. It's the hard work of million of people exerting effort everyday.

Look at space. We had suffered stagnation for a while. Even newspace companies aren't necessarily better, just new entrants. We had widely divergent outcomes for "new" companies that are more than two decades old. At least it only take one to have massive success.
by kevincox | 2025-07-03 14:22:45+00:00
They literally said this is the reason in their marketing.

> features an entirely new material called Liquid Glass. It combines the optical qualities of glass with a fluidity only Apple can achieve

https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2025/06/apple-introduces-a...

But yeah, it is a pretty clever way to make most cross-platform toolkits stand out and create a desire to create true native apps which increases their moat and means that some apps will have only an Apple version (or a worse app on other platforms) rather than releasing the same app on all platforms.