MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mfrye0 | 2025-08-11 22:07:37+00:00
Super interesting. I had the same experience trying to connect a CRM with various tools and the data was typically an absolute mess. It's a hard problem.

Would you be open to chat further? I'm not sure if I can help you or not without learning more, but I'd love to better understand what you're seeing at minimum for research purposes. My email is in my profile.
by dathinab | 2025-08-11 22:08:09+00:00
> compliant with whatever ISO cert you're pursuing

ISO cert compatibility audits are very different from a proper security audit.

And weather they do anything to check if depends on which you high, many of the slightly more expensive ones have the reputation to be "fast" and "overlook most issues".

But that doesn't apply to all security audits (but most audits for ISO compatibility, like really it's bad).

Anyway see my way to long answer about the on a sibling comment.
by GiorgioG | 2025-08-11 22:08:10+00:00
Look, if you want to live life like a hermit, that’s on you. As you get older, you will lose people, friends, family, acquaintances, not only through death, but growing apart for “normal” reasons, moving away, job changes, changes in interests, getting married, etc. Rarely in life do you make more connections later in life than you had when you were younger. The more you rail against social norms, the more you isolate yourself. If that’s what you want, fair enough. But if you want to be part of a well functioning social group, the rest of us value getting together at the end of someone’s life.
by dylan604 | 2025-08-11 22:08:28+00:00
> And in some cases, the airlines have substantial control—Delta One has a separate security line at JFK.

I'm actually surprised more airports don't have VIP level gates that the airlines can pay a premium for allowing them to charge a premium to their passengers. It'd be interesting to see where the price could be that would guarantee enough passengers willing to pay the premium for much reduced airport headaches.
by mzaccari | 2025-08-11 22:08:55+00:00
I think the op was trying to highlight this nugget in one of the thread emails[0]:

>And now, I just got an email from Linus saying "we're now talking about git rm -rf in 6.18", after previously saying we just needed a go-between.

Edit to add that LWN noted this at the end of the "The rest of the 6.17 merge window" post[1].

[0]: https://lwn.net/ml/all/5ip2wzfo32zs7uznaunpqj2bjmz3log4yrrde...

[1]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1032095/06b4e3b1b30fe2a9/
by refulgentis | 2025-08-11 22:10:14+00:00
Nah, llama.cpp is stable.

llama.cpp also got GPT-OSS early, like Ollama.

There's a lot of extremely subtle politics going on in the link.

Suffice it to say, as a commercial entity, there's a very clever way to put your thumb on the scale of what works and what doesn't without it being obvious to anyone involved, even the thumb.
by tom_ | 2025-08-11 22:10:15+00:00
Possibly related, possibly meta: https://x.com/_opencv_

(Alt URLs: https://nitter.poast.org/_opencv_ https://xcancel.com/_opencv_)

(Edit: hmm, feels like we could do with a HN bot for this sort of thing! There is/was one for finding free versions of paywalled posts. Feels like a twitter/X equivalent should be easy mode.)
by Eji1700 | 2025-08-11 22:10:18+00:00
> For example, why write out a recursive function when a call to `fold` or `map` will do the same thing?

Yeah this was a big help when I started F#. Basically "if you're using the rec keyword, you're probably missing something" and hell that even goes for a lot of uses of fold, from the beginners perspective.
by joshstrange | 2025-08-11 22:10:43+00:00
> Is it really censorship when 90% of AI related posts are just not-so-thinly-veiled advertisements with zero potential for meaningful discussion beyond "yes I agree fellow independent user, I also love Claude Code™ from Anthropic® and it has 1000x'd my productivity, their $5000/mo plan is a steal and everyone should buy it!"

I'm far from sold on vibe-coding or heavy-ai-assist (whatever you want to call it) but I find these "How developers use Claude Code" blog posts fascinating and not for a second do I think they are paid ads.

Do you really think the blog posts shared here on HN talking about how people are using Claude (among other tools) are all (or mostly) paid ads?
by weitendorf | 2025-08-11 22:10:57+00:00
What makes tail recursion "special" is that there exists a semantically equivalent mutable/iterative implementation to something expressed logically as immutable/recursive. [0]

Of course, this means that the same implementation could also be directly expressed logically in a way that is mutable/iterative.

func pow(uint base, uint n): n == 0 ? return 1 : return n * pow(base, n-1)

is just

func pow(uint base, uint n): uint res = 1; for(i=0; i<n; i++){ res *= n} return res

There is no real "advantage" to, or reason to "sell" anybody on tail call recursion if you are able to easily and clearly represent both implementations, IMO. It is just a compiler/runtime optimization, which might make your code more "elegant" at the cost of obfuscating how it actually runs + new footguns from the possibility that code you think should use TCO actually not (because not all immutable + recursive functions can use TCO, only certain kinds, and your runtime may not even implement TCO in all cases where it theoretically should).

As an aside, in C++ there is something very similar to TCO called copy-elision/return-value-optimization (RVO): [1]. As with TCO it is IMO not something "buy into" or sell yourself on, it is just an optimization you can leverage when structuring your code in a way similar to what the article calls "continuation passing style". And just like TCO, RVO is neat but IMO slightly dangerous because it relies on implicit compiler/runtime optimizations that can be accidentally disabled or made non-applicable as code changes: if someone wanders in and makes small semantic to changes to my code relying on RVO/TCO for performance they could silently break something important.

[0] EXCEPT in practice all implementation differences/optimizations introduce observable side effects that can otherwise impact program correctness or semantics. For example, a program could (perhaps implicitly) rely on the fact that it errors out due to stack overflow when recursing > X times, and so enabling TCO could cause the program to enter new/undesirable states; or a program could rely on a functin F making X floating point operations taking at least Y cycles in at least Z microseconds, and not function properly when F takes less than Z microseconds after enabling vectorization. This is Hyrum's Law [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_elision#Return_value_opti...

[2] https://www.hyrumslaw.com/
by metalman | 2025-08-11 22:11:56+00:00
35°c, in the shade here, almost precisly on the 45'th parallel, the ground in baked hard, evrything is starting to wilt a bit, peole are getting water trucked in to there dug wells, just checked weather across the country and we seem to be about the hottest, will last a few more days, my fridge quit first thing this morning, my horse has never sought shade till today, almost no mosquitos, temp tonight will be in the mid teens, and then back up again, only good thing, is that there is no wind.........normal NS weather/climate is much much cooler and damp....to the point that mycologists come here to do field work, the only place with more mushrooms bieng somwhere in siberia
by cogman10 | 2025-08-11 22:11:56+00:00
Vibration, frequency, quantum, energy. All things I've seen as well.

There's a somewhat significant group of people that are easily wooed by incorrectly used technical terms. So much so that they are willing to very confidently use the words incorrectly and get offended when you point that out to them.

I think pop-science journalism and media has a lot of the blame here. In the search to make things accessible and entertaining they turned meaningful terms into magic incantations. They further simply lied and exaggerated implications. Those two things made it easy for grifters to sell magic quantum charms to ward off the bad frequencies.
by echelon | 2025-08-11 22:13:00+00:00
> Except that, in practice the defense of self styled free speech advocates did not extended to left, gay, radical feminists, progressives anyone not far right.

It absolutely has.

LGBT rights:

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-202...

NAMBLA:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-defending...

HIV:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/outmemphis-v-lee

BLM:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/in-a-major-win-for-our-r...

Women's rights:

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-rejects-ap...
by darth_avocado | 2025-08-11 22:13:03+00:00
I see it as designing choices. Want to eat healthy? Don’t bring the ice cream (or whatever else you struggle to eat less of) in your home. Want to get up early? Start going to bed at 8 and leave your phone in the other room. Want to exercise more often? Force yourself to bike or walk to the grocery store instead of jumping in the car.
by nikcub | 2025-08-11 22:13:14+00:00
The entire point of CC is to drive anthropic subscriptions and it's working. even with the release of the long-awaited gpt5 the anthropic models are still the best coding models.

There are plenty of alternatives for other models like opencode et al, and you can always just set ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL with claude code to have it use another provider. I don't see why they need to do anything in addition to that.

My only request would be for claude code to be a bit more open, less obfuscated and to accept PRs - but I understand the unwillingness of also wanting to manage what would be a very popular open source project.
Internal tool reduced our LLM (ChatGPT/Claude) costs by 70% for document Q&A
by sam-abdul | 2025-08-11 22:13:36+00:00
Our startup was spending a significant amount each month using ChatGPT and Claude to analyze documents like reports and contracts. The problem was that every query sent the entire document to the LLM, even when only specific sections were relevant.

To address this, we built an internal tool that:

Stores documents once and breaks them into chunks

Uses embeddings to find only the relevant sections per question

Sends just those parts to ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini

The result has been roughly a 70% reduction in LLM usage costs, with no drop in answer quality.

We’re considering whether to release this tool publicly and would be interested to hear if others face similar challenges or have built similar solutions.

Curious what approaches people are using to optimize document-based LLM workflows?
by arscan | 2025-08-11 22:13:39+00:00
The feedback loop from potential developer users of your API is excruciatingly slow and typically not a process that an API developer would want to engage in. Recruit a bunch of developers to read the docs and try it out? See how they used it after days/weeks? Ask them what they had trouble with? Organize a hackathon? Yuck. AI, on the other hand, gives you immediate feedback as to the usability of your “UAI”. It makes something, in under a minute, and you can see what mistakes it made. After you make improvements to the docs or API itself, you can effectively wipe its memory by cleaning out the context, and see if what you did helped. It’s the difference between debugging a punchcard based computing system and one that has a fully featured repl.
by refulgentis | 2025-08-11 22:13:46+00:00
The relationship between Ollama and llama.cpp is massively closer than it must seem.

Ollama is llama.cpp with a nice little installer GUI and nice little server binary.

llama.cpp has a server binary as well, however, no nice installer GUI.

The only time recently Ollama had a feature llama.cpp didn't was they patched SWA in with Google, llama.cpp had it a couple weeks later.

Ollama is significantly behind llama.cpp in important areas, ex. the Gemma blog post, they note they'll get on tool calls and multimodal real soon now.
by api | 2025-08-11 22:14:04+00:00
How long an evolutionary change takes can vary widely depending on a ton of factors: current makeup of the gene pool, strength of selection, whether it's a single or multiple gene trait, whether and to what extent there are counter-pressures selecting in the other way, and so on. It's very hard to say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
by Sebb767 | 2025-08-11 22:14:18+00:00
> but you can also run most Windows and Linux applications (in a VM).

This is really just a cheap rhetorical trick. Linux [0] can run just as much software, if you include VMs, but you can't legally virtualize MacOS, therefore buying a Mac is the only way to legally run their software, in addition to everything else. Now, you are technically correct, but the casual interpretation of

> Eh, macOS is still the UNIX with the most commercial software available.

isn't really that you can simply run everything unavailable on MacOS in a VM (or several layers of VMs). It's the same as arguing that Powerpoint is all you ever need, as it is Turing complete.

[0] And so can Windows, if you run said VMs in a Linux VM.
by isaacremuant | 2025-08-11 22:14:20+00:00
> So people should die of pandemix diseases for making sure that personal freedoms are never ever temporarily restricted, got it.

This is the authoritarian mantra. Accusing others of "harming" so you get to impose your bullshit unquestioned. It's always the same strategy. It's always "temporal" and yet the precedent stays.

> One side seems busy with taking democratic institutions down, I wouldn't be surprised if freedom is next anyway. (well freedom of opinion is already disappearing)

"One side"? Lol. You're gonna give me that old charade of evil trump and repubs and how it's good when your side does it to stop them? Or is it viceversa. In any case, it's still bullshit and you're the problem.
by derefr | 2025-08-11 22:14:34+00:00
> Reminders is not the job of a todo app, it is the job of a calendar app.

Ehh. The thing with a calendar "reminder" is that calendar apps assume that any such reminder is irrelevant once the time you set for the reminder goes by. They exist to remind you that some time-sensitive real-world event is starting, in time to be ready for it; but once that event has ended, you must have either done it or missed it — so either way, the calendar forgets about it.

Whereas a reminder / "todo with a date" object in a reminder/todo app, makes a different assumption: that you still need to do the thing, even if you didn't interact with the reminder when it first popped up. So the reminder is still there, glowing brightly, and often pops back up with further notifications, until you complete it.

Three examples from my own calendar of the type of reminder I'm talking about here, if you can't yet picture what I mean:

• It's time to replace the filter in my cat's water fountain [and take apart and scrub all the parts of the fountain while I'm at it.] (This isn't urgent — there's no particular need to do it exactly when I'm reminded of it — but it grows more urgent the longer it is left undone. The persistence of the reminder helps me to remember to do it, if I was busy when I first saw it.)

• I've gotta either pick the specific meals going into my meal-box subscription service box by midnight Saturday, or skip the week (or the service will pick randomly for me, giving me things I really don't want to eat, and I'll torture myself trying to motivate myself to cook those meals anyway, because I don't want to waste money/food.) I set this one to go off with two explicit "pre-notifications" twice — once at 7PM on Thursday, and again at 9PM on Friday. It then goes off again on its own, a little bit before midnight, and that's the final warning. (And, of course, if I check it off before then, the other notifications associated with that instance of the reminder won't fire.) I also usually just leave the Friday 9PM one unacknowledged + open as a toast on my computer until I've picked it, to ensure I won't get distracted and forget about it.

• Pay my credit card bill. (I have monthly autopay set up, but my understanding is that they still get to charge some minimal amount of interest for any charge that remains posted + not paid down for 21 days. So I set a reminder to pay the card down every 14 days. Again, not urgent per se — the worst that happens is that the 30-day autopay kicks in. But I find it a convenient time to review the last 14 days of charges for any strange activity; and the longer I go without doing that, the more of a schlep that starts to feel like — so biweekly is actually good here.

To be clear, I had all three of these set up as calendar events before — and they didn't work very well that way! Repeating reminders have much better semantics here.
by etothepii | 2025-08-11 22:14:37+00:00
I used to be a polyphasic sleeper so this article interested me but I find myself stuck on the final paragraph.

> My velocity has increased 10x and I'm shipping features like a cracked ninja now, which is great because my B2B SaaS is still in stealth mode.

Does someone have a good book I can read on stealth mode startups?

My B2B SaaS is only small (about $1.25m ARR) but I can't imagine shipping features without someone to use them. We could definitely write a lot more features if our users didn't point out the ways that what we were doing wasn't quite right or didn't fit with the problem we thought we were solving.

I can imagine doing the business part, regulatory part or hard tech part of a startup in stealth mode - but what would does it mean to ship features in stealth mode?
by CharlieDigital | 2025-08-11 22:15:10+00:00
VS - great if you are Windows only shop for dev and want all the bells and whistles

Rider - has all of the the nice things JetBrains does and the best option on Mac if you need advanced refactoring; UI feels a bit cluttered at time (though they improved this).

VSC - for whatever reason, I always end up back to VSC for .NET for backends. Good enough, fast, and lightweight enough. Plays nicely with Node and full-stack monorepos.

I would commit to VSC and try to make it work. If you find you need advanced refactoring support, then try out Rider.
by rjsw | 2025-08-11 22:15:27+00:00
The HP.115 [1] and BAC 221 [2] were not exact scale replicas of Concorde.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta_2#BAC_221
by bjoli | 2025-08-11 22:15:52+00:00
I am in the other camp. I prefer tail recursion and recursion over loops. However: For the simple cases it can and should probably be abstracted away like the racket for loops or my own goof-loop [1].

I just feel that a recursive calls makes state much more clear, but then again I am no fan of mutation in general. In my old python days I think a good 60% of my bugs were due to me being bad at managing state.

[1] https://rikspucko.koketteriet.se/bjoli/goof-loop
by renewiltord | 2025-08-11 22:15:53+00:00
Yeah, but whatever Germany is doing is obviously wrong because 62.5% of their stops have trains arriving within 6 minutes of target time https://www.dw.com/en/over-a-third-of-deutsche-bahn-long-dis... while the UK has 85.9% of their stops having trains arriving within 3 minutes of target time https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/performance/passeng...

So whatever the Germans are doing with their rail, thank god the UK isn't.
by angmarsbane | 2025-08-11 22:16:12+00:00
I've been encouraging my cousin who desperately wants children to have them in her two bedroom apartment but she feels that she needs to have a house first and she and her husband can't afford one. They're in their late 30s. My partner and I are mid-30s planning to have young children in our 2 bedroom apartment, we'd prefer a 3 bedroom but they DO NOT EXIST in our Los Angeles neighborhood. More space means untenable commutes which brings more complicated childcare logistics (can't get to daycare before it closes, less time with kids etc).
by hermitcrab | 2025-08-11 22:17:02+00:00
There is a (possibly apocryphal) story of cars being specified to understand a 100kmh air speed on the rear windscreen. 'Ridiculous, it can't reverse at more than 30kmh said the car designers' and ignored the spec. The first time new cars were transported on a train, all the rear windscreens blew in.

A long time ago I worked on a software product to try to record design decisions in the creation of long-lived artefacts, such as nuclear reactors. The idea being that engineers looking to make a change 20+ years later (when the original engineers had retired) would understand why something had been designed the way it had.

The project was not a success, despite some initial enthusiasm from some commercial sponsors. I think this was due to 2 main issues:

a) The software infrastructure of the days wasn't really up to it. This was just before wikis, intranets etc, which would have made everything a lot easier.

b) The engineers working on the design had no incentive to record the rationale of their decisions. It was extra work with no benefit for them (any benefit was by someone else, years down the line). In fact it could make it more likely for them to be held liable for a bad decision. And, in an age of cheap outsourcing, it could reduce their job security.

The second problem was by far the more important and I don't know how you get around it.
by simplyluke | 2025-08-11 22:17:02+00:00
Attributing the actions being taken by the UK (and much of the EU) to a lack of understanding is a quite generous interpretation. That may have been true a generation ago, but it's not now.

Many of us think that they understand a free internet very well, specifically the threats it places on their uses (and abuses) of power, and that the laws are quite well designed to curtail that. The UK currently, without identity verification, arrests 30 people per day for things they say online.
by wubrr | 2025-08-11 22:17:03+00:00
> Does ollama support strict structured output or strict tool calls adhering to a json schema?

As far as I understand this is generally not possible at the model level. Best you can do is wrap the call in a (non-llm) json schema validator, and emit an error json in case the llm output does not match the schema, which is what some APIs do for you, but not very complicated to do yourself.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong
by tetris11 | 2025-08-11 22:17:32+00:00
The ease of having a tool which can at a drop of the hat spin up a convincing narrative to fit your psychotic world view with plenty of examples to boot, does seem to look like an accelerating trend.

Trying to convince someone not to do something, when they can pull a 100 counter-examples out of thin air of why they should, is legitimately worrying.
by degamad | 2025-08-11 22:17:47+00:00
> Also, this directly contradicts the opening line where he says "...losing touch with reality because of AI".

He addresses that in the next post:

> AI was the trigger, but not the gun.

One way of teasing that apart is to consider that AI didn't cause the underlying psychosis, but AI made it worse, so that AI caused the hospitalisation.

Or AI didn't cause the loose grip on reality, but it exacerbated that into completely losing touch with reality.
by bodge5000 | 2025-08-11 22:17:59+00:00
Feels like the word "all" is pulling a lot of weight in that sentence, it's not cheap and you're forever reliant on a company to keep providing the service (which has already changed recently I think, seem to remember something about harsher rate limiting being put in place). "All you need" typically implies that you don't need much (eg "The terminal is all you need"), and Claude Code isn't that.

Otherwise good article, I'm still not sure vibe coding is for me and at the price, it's hard to justify trying to out, but things like this do make me a little more tempted to give it a shot. I doubt it'd ever replace writing code by hand for me, but could be fun for prototyping I suppose