MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by movpasd | 2025-07-13 15:41:49+00:00
I think it can be useful to think of the parsing and logic parts both as modules, with the parsing part interfacing with the outside world via unstructured data, and the parsing and logic parts interfacing via structured data, i.e.: the validated types.

From that perspective, there is a clear trade-off on the size of the parsing–logic interface. Introducing more granular, safer validated types may give you better functionality, but it forces you to expand that interface and create coupling.

I think there is a middle ground, which is that these safe types should be chunked into larger structures that enforce a range of related invariants and hopefully have some kind of domain meaning. That way, you shrink the conceptual surface area of the interface so that working with it is less painful.
by pmarreck | 2025-07-13 15:42:15+00:00
There are languages that transpile to Lua that get you things like typing…

https://typescripttolua.github.io/

I’m personally a fan of YueScript which is basically an evolution of MoonScript (but it’s not typed).

https://yuescript.org/

LuaJIT has ridiculously easy C interop.
by alganet | 2025-07-13 15:42:32+00:00
Private disclosures for more sensitive vulnerabilities are a recommended practice. In your analogy, that's why I aluded to.

In such cases, you only share the sensitive vulnerability publicly once there is a fix. For this case, there seems to be no fix.

One could think of it as a way to promote more scrutinized hiring processes, but it actually encourages widespread paranoia and fear.

It seems your analogy is valid, but the conclusion is that it supports what I said.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-07-13 15:42:42+00:00
The other factor both of you are failing to see is that the majority of males are hetero normative and don't like watching sword fighting. This is not an outdated take but factual reality. There is nothing wrong with the alternative, but depicting only "hetero-normative" stuff is the statistical norm back then and even now.

It's absolutely the right thing to do to legitimize "non-hetero-normative" in the same way left-handedness is legitimate but saying any of it is "normal" and declaring anything not involving it as "dated" is absolutely out of touch with reality.
by doctorpangloss | 2025-07-13 15:42:53+00:00
the most interesting idea so far.

What Axon's product should be: Define "best" police report, and assist the officer to write that.

What it is: Axon makes whatever police departments ask for.

It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy. It's not incompetence either. Hanlon's Razer should really be, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by" the enterprise sales pipeline.

Enterprise sales is why we are talking about Axon and not far older, detailed, thoughtful efforts from all sorts of other organizations.
by toast0 | 2025-07-13 15:43:30+00:00
My understanding is for a US employee, the employer is supposed to confirm eligibility to work in the first 3 days of employment. Some form of government id plus a social security card or a passport or something like that. IRS form I-9

Otoh, if these positions are independent contractors, form I-9 isn't required. Just a tax id for reporting purposes.

I would imagine whoever is hosting the laptops may be authorized to work in the US and could also be convinced to provide identity documentation. I think there's a lot of borrowing of documentation by immigrants/migrants who are not authorized to work in the US; so there's probably a marketplace somewhere too.
by KineticLensman | 2025-07-13 15:44:42+00:00
Totally agree. "Stand on Zanzibar" has a modern-world feel to it although some parts have been visited by the Suck Fairy. "Shockwave Rider" is also interesting - IIRC characters use their landline phones to access large computer systems. Because Brunner never really goes into too many techy details - it's just phones and computers - it's less jarring to read now than books where technology-heavy authors such as Arthur C Clarke tried to describe in detail what future computing devices might look like.
by bgwalter | 2025-07-13 15:46:57+00:00
This author is an apologist for the slander of Tim Peters:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1f00qdo/no_vote_of_...

He cites Glyph Lefkowitz to support him, who now gives advice on lunch vs. dinner networking strategies at PyCons. Which should be taken seriously: Being in the right circles and talking is all that matters in the Python ecosystem.
by aspenmayer | 2025-07-13 15:48:08+00:00
That is probably due to network conditions between you and the server hosting the site, and possibly DNS issues causing your connection to be downgraded or degraded. Perhaps your browser is out of date. There are a lot of reasons that could be happening that have little to nothing to do with the site, which works for me without any cert errors, though I did get a Cloudflare turnstile.
by adamtaylor_13 | 2025-07-13 15:48:18+00:00
I’m a software engineer turned business owner. I run a software agency and we’re building client projects at a rate I could never have dreamed about. We’re not sacrificing quality at all. In fact, if anything we’re increasing quality.

All code is reviewed by senior devs. We use Rails so that probably helps get good results.

No promotions here but our clients love the results we’re delivering (they did before AI too).

Not a 10x story but we’re definitely getting a lot more done than we did before and we’re able to maintain a level of quality we just couldn’t before. TDD + AI refactoring leads to unbelievably clean codebases.
by mdaniel | 2025-07-13 15:49:06+00:00
> Everyone would just have their productivity supercharged at the same rate.

I dunno about you, but in almost every one of these threads the exact same two classes of people show up: the ones championing the insane multiples they get from their AI, and the people who say "it doesn't work for me" whereupon the first class of people say "well, then you're just holding it wrong"

So, no, it's not the same rate because the non-deterministic behavior means that one cannot provide a shell script that person A and person B can run on their machine and get the same outcome like in the good ol' deterministic software tooling days
by naikrovek | 2025-07-13 15:49:51+00:00
If you don’t already know how simple permissions, read-only storage, and digital signatures work, I don’t think that you have any business telling anyone that they’re misunderstanding anything.

Bitcoin was made to solve problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish to make money with bitcoin. Other blockchains serve the same purpose. Zero people use it as a ledger, except as a joke or to prove how stupidly limited and inefficient it is.

Bitcoin also has created problems that didn’t exist prior to the invention of the blockchain.

So, aside from the myriad negative effects of the blockchain, it is wholly and completely pointless unless you think it will make you money. If that’s how you think of yourself, you are a parasitic scammer spreading ransomware trying to make people think you are a legitimate human person with a right to live.
by stephenlf | 2025-07-13 15:50:22+00:00
I believe Fly.io deploys some Gleam in prod. I tried playing with Gleam for a bit, but I got stuck trying to make the Actor Model make sense. It’s Gleam’s solution to mutable state, inherited from Erlang and the BEAM. It takes so much code just to emulate a simple, mutable Map. I liked Rust’s middle ground with `mut` in function defs.
by mrkeen | 2025-07-13 15:52:15+00:00
I'm not smart enough to suggest a fix here, I'm just pointing out that this article is not the PdV from the well known article.

But I can spot when code is doing exactly what the cited article says not to do,

This line is the "validate" in the expression "parse, don't validate":

if (theEmail.error != PARSE_OK)

You might like it, but that's not my business. Maybe this C article should have been "parse, then validate".

You'd be better off reading the original: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
by cogman10 | 2025-07-13 15:52:31+00:00
It seems like exactly the same verbosity as what you'd do with a custom allocator.

I think the only real grace is you don't have to pass around the allocator. But then you run into the issue where now anyone allocating needs to know about the lifetimes of the pool of the caller. If A -> B (pool) -> C and the returned allocation of C ends up in A, now you potentially have a pointer to freed memory.

Sending around the explicit allocator would allow C to choose when it should allocate globally and when it should allocate on the pool sent in.
by avs733 | 2025-07-13 15:52:51+00:00
It goes a lot deeper than this, the real world isn't as simple as 'objective truth' and much of the law relies on interpreting the facts we all seek. This is where this technology fails, it normalizes nudging the margins to include a framing of what happened (including that video) using particular and precise language. That language influences court decisions.

For example, the phrase 'furtive movements' seems really anochronistic. Is that a phrase you use? cops use in their day to day life? But it constantly shows up in police reports. Why? The courts have said that 'furtive' movements are suspicious enough to trigger probable cause - which justifies a search. So now, cops every where write that they observe movements that are furtive. Is what your attorney viewed furtive? where they normal movements? were they suspicious? The cop described them as furtive though and we defer to cops, in part because they speak the language of the courts, and now your arrest is valid and that search is valid and whatever is recovered is valid - because a court said movements need to be furtive and you sneezed and a cop described that as furtive even though he had already decided to do the search before he got out of his car.

The only way our system works is if at every level every participant (people, jurors, judges, politicians) distrust the words of police - especially when they habitually use the language of the law to justify their actions. What this tool does is quite the opposite, it will statistically normalize the words police use to describe every interaction in language that is meant to persuade and influence courts now and over time to defer to police.

https://www.bjjohnsonlaw.com/furtive-movements-and-fourth-am...

https://www.californialawreview.org/print/whack-a-mole-sus
by ben_w | 2025-07-13 15:52:59+00:00
Tariffs are a demand-side change, there's also subsidies for supply-side.

But the manner in which they were done shows a lack of planning. Whatever it is you want to on-shore (or prevent from being off-shored), tariff that, but not the economic inputs to make that.

Want to make more EVs domestically? Don't tariff electric motors. Want to make more electric motors domestically? Don't tariff bolts, insulated wire, or high performance permanent magnets. Want to make more high performance permanent magnets domestically? Don't tariff neodymium.

If you tariff everything, you're putting off manufacturing that depends on anything.
by mateovalle | 2025-07-13 15:54:29+00:00
Totally fair take and really appreciate the thoughtful response.

I actually agree that the hardest DevOps problems are strategic, not just technical. But I think there is a real need in the middle ground: teams that have outgrown Heroku/Vercel but aren't ready to hire a full-time DevOps person. They want sane defaults, visibility, and scalability, but still want to own their infra for compliance, security, or flexibility.

We're not trying to replace infra strategy, more like handle the 80% that’s boilerplate so teams don’t waste weeks reinventing the same wheel.
by codethief | 2025-07-13 15:54:32+00:00
> If I'm reading this correctly, this means you are not able to donate to Firefox development at all

Yes, this is what so many people here on HN have complained about for years :) and is also being raised by the OP:

> To be clear, I very much support the Foundation, and it does amazing work, but I want to know this money in particular would directly support Firefox development.
by pshirshov | 2025-07-13 15:54:33+00:00
My personal experience of writing various DSL/general purpose compilers (I've created at least 4 DSL compilers and one general purpose) is kinda different from the books I've read.

Scala is an awesome language which frees one from working on many boring details and makes it possible to keep the codebase tiny. With such an expressive language I can concentrate on the logic instead of thinking about minor things.

We have enough memory and cpu power to use worse than linear algorithms without noticeable performance impact.

Parsers aren't an issue at all in our days, peg combinators like fastparse allow one to be extremely productive.

I tend to stick to immutable multi-staged pipelile with several immutable trees, use error-accumulating data structures (Either[NonEmptyList[Issue], T]), explicitly express entity (eg type definition) dependencies as graphs (which can be processed iteratively and in parallel).
by wavemode | 2025-07-13 15:54:47+00:00
> The whole "prevent double free" claim is completely bogus.

The way I interpreted the author's intent was that, the logic of error handling (something C sucks even more at) can be greatly simplified if your cleanup routine can freely be called multiple times. At the moment an error happens you no longer have to keep track of where you are in the lifecycle of each local variable, you can just call cleanup() on everything. I actually like the idea from that standpoint.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-07-13 15:54:50+00:00
you're just spreading FUD about zig breaking before 1.0. there is zero basis for you to be "relatively confident" about this matter, because

1. the io situation is basically restructuring analgously to the allocator situation, which is at this point battle tested. there are currently no "monads wrapping statefulness" anywhere in zig.

2. It's not in zig's nature to build something because it it satisifies an fp idiom. the abstractions and resulting "thing that the hardware does" (at least in release builds) are generally more or less obvious. the levels of compiler reinterpretation to achieve functional purity are not really the sort of thing that zig does. for example, zig does not have a privileged "iterator" method that the compiler reinterprets in a way that unrolls blocks or lambdas into loops without crossing a frame boundary.
by esperent | 2025-07-13 15:55:01+00:00
> hardcoding API keys? ignoring errors? disabling lints?

These kind of "rookie mistakes" are not things that any modern LLM is likely to do. Indeed, I had to argue quite strongly with Gemini recently when I was learning a new tool (so basically just playing around with a fully local setup) and I hardcoded an API key then tried to commit it. The LLM did NOT like that! I had to carefully explain that this was a toy repo.

The argument against this (by Gemini) was that toy repos often grow into production tools so it's best to follow basic security rules from the start. Which, to be fair, is a good argument. I still committed the key though (and deleted the repo a day or so later).
by roughly | 2025-07-13 15:55:14+00:00
Gibson is such a unique sci-fi author because his fundamental interest is fashion (he’s said this himself) - his worlds are beautiful, but completely skin deep, and he’s a master of using one word or phrase to evoke an entire world or backstory, but you scratch at what he’s written and it’s all vibes. Bruce Sterling is similar, although maybe less of a fashion native - they’re both looking at people and at trends and treating the technology like an extension of that, not as the point.

(Compare that to someone like Neal Stephenson, who also helped define cyberpunk, but whose deep, deep geekiness about his subject is so unavoidable as to occasionally grind the books to a halt…)
by OtherShrezzing | 2025-07-13 15:56:25+00:00
> Simple command-line tools that implement obscure hashing and encryption algorithms are straightforward initial targets, but this approach can easily extend to more complex software, such as websites, professional software, and games.

>Each replication task consists of a detailed specification and a reference implementation. The central idea is that AI models are trained to produce an implementation that precisely matches the reference behavior.

I really don't see the connection from the statements in the article's content, and the assertion near the start that:

>Doing this effectively will produce RL models with strong few-shot, task-agnostic abilities capable of quickly adapting to entirely new tasks.

There's no clear reason outlined in the piece to describe why narrow & well-scoped 1-person-day tasks might scale up to 10,000-person-year projects. If they did, we should expect far more 10,000-person-year projects in the real economy, because the learning curve for firms scaling would be something approximating a straight line. There are very few 10,000-person-year projects, and very many 1-person-day projects.

It seems more like this will spend an unimaginable amount of compute, in order to produce models which are incredibly good at a very precise form of IP theft, and not especially good at any generalisable skills. It's so ludicrously rare that an engineer (or author, illustrator, etc) is tasked with "create a pixel-perfect reimplementation of this existing tool".
by KineticLensman | 2025-07-13 15:56:32+00:00
> Tolkien was a seasoned linguist and he worked on LoTR for about a decade

This actually understates the effort Tolkien put in. He'd started the world-building that led to LoTR approx 35 years before the publication of the first volume (in 1954), specifically by writing the first tales in the Legendarium we now recognise as The Silmarillion. And he never actually completed the latter even having spent almost 60 years working on it.
by kube-system | 2025-07-13 15:58:35+00:00
I think people on tech forums overestimate the significance of this in today’s world.

Back in the early days of FOSS, when almost everyone who used software was also a programmer, it made a difference.

Today, nearly all people who would care about libre software licenses, are aware of their existence. The vast majority of computer users today are just attempting to do some other task and do not give a shit about the device or the legal consequences of using it, even if you warn them. They simply don’t care about software.
by keiferski | 2025-07-13 15:58:39+00:00
I don’t think that’s an accurate view of what the job market was like in the 70s and 80s.

My point was more that I think there was more of a feeling of security, in the sense that regular people felt a little more optimistic about the future and their personal finances. People started low on the totem pole but felt confident about moving upwards slowly. That feeling doesn’t really exist anymore.
by nucleardog | 2025-07-13 15:58:53+00:00
Inform what companies directly? If it's this pervasive, that's not going to be effective.

I work at a small (~30 person) SaaS company. We interviewed what I took to be a case of this the other day (all the classic signs). Nobody would be keeping an eye on our hires or letting us know about this.

And in the process of confirming that this was fishy, I contacted one of the past employers he claimed after doing my best to confirm _they_ weren't in any way part of the scam. They confirmed he had never worked there. I sent them his LinkedIn and portfolio site in case they wanted to chase down getting their name removed.

They told me that this was super concerning because the screenshots in his portfolio of the app he worked on for them were real screenshots... for an unreleased app that was only available internally and had never even been demoed for clients.

They'd already been breached and had god knows what exfiltrated. They found out because we caught an attempt to get hired at _our_ company and let them know.

Nobody outside of a couple of technical staff at our company had even _heard_ of this. Nobody at the other company had. The fix, to me, seems to be making people involved in hiring more aware of this. If anything, it seems we should be talking about this _more_ and _more publicly_.
by iharshgarg | 2025-07-13 15:58:56+00:00
Location: surat, india Remote: yes Willing to relocate: sure Technologies: c, c++, java, python, javascript, express.js, node.js, mongodb, html, css, ..etc much more.. Résumé/CV:https://www.linkedin.com/in/iharshgarg/ Email:alwaysharshgarg@gmail.com

Hi! Harsh here. As a hobby project, I built a social network site called facemash.in …if you search ‘facemash india’ this site ranks #1 on Google. It is like a basic version of facebook.. Have a look!..If you like it, I can make good projects for you as well! It’s like a basic version of facebook with features like login, posts, comments, friends, chatting(realtime)..
by dcow | 2025-07-13 15:59:40+00:00
The problem is using physical identity online sucks. Well intentioned and honest people want to fix that issue. I have flown entirely with a mobile drivers license without pulling out a physical ID for the last few years. It’s objectively better and it’s already here. It’s heaven. You can’t really be arguing that when some service needs your ID that uploading photos of it is better from any angle. There’s not a one.
by ojosilva | 2025-07-13 16:00:07+00:00
Very tricky. First, it needs management change willing to go Jerry McGuire on the c-suite and Foundation, plus deal with all internal culture debt and oxidized dynamics.

Secondly, Mozilla would have to deal with Google - could be done, Google pays so a major browser exists, paid subscribers may help recover lost browser share for FF... And, that Google deal may be going away soon anyway. Probably negotiable.

Third, the free-tier and paid tiers need to be set in a way that everyone (OSS advocates included) are happy and there's tangent value for people on the fence for a paid subscription. Having people just pay because they want to pay for their browser is not a business plan, and Mozilla needs a real business plan moving forward.
by Forgeties79 | 2025-07-13 16:00:46+00:00
I’m not sure who “the market” is in this case, but reCAPTCHA is owned and implemented by Google and clearly favors their browser. Any attempts to use other browsers or obfuscate your digital footprint in the slightest leads to all kinds of headaches. It’s a very convenient side effect of their “anti-bot” efforts that they have every incentive to steer in to.
by mdkdjdnffn | 2025-07-13 16:00:58+00:00
> What’s the dev experience actually like for serious Lua

The dev experience for lua is f-ing awful.

The language is small, but not “simple”; it’s stuck in 1985.

The tooling is nearly non-existent and the stuff that does exist is a joke.

The few libraries that exist are awful and barely maintained; the maintained libraries are maintained by neckbeards with a god-complex.

The community is “reimplementing everything by hand is the right way to do it AND ALSO you’re an idiot doing it wrong” toxic. There are a million good reasons why it’s only has a foothold in nginx and Roblox territory.

It’s not a joke to say that it’s f-ing terrible all the way around.