MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by intended | 2025-08-16 04:41:51+00:00
> I also had to privately learn how to pace myself, setting realistic, appropriate and prioritized daily goals (nevermind the arm's-long TODO list). Checking myself against those, aiming for better goal-setting each day. Being able to close the laptop when it's done. I never really had a sense of "done" before, I had a lifetime of feeling always-behind. There's this peace, though, that comes with realizing that you _can_ prioritize effectively, do the things, then rest. That peace can become its own reward, which is bananas to me, because my unmedicated brain would never have felt that.

This is pretty much what I am working on, and I too have had followed the “burn out after getting diagnosed and medicated” arc.

Being able to set realistic, appropriate, and prioritized daily goals, and aiming for better goal-setting each day. Sounds like a good thing to aim for.,

I still don’t have a sense of “done”, and struggle to achieve that, even though I know I managed to move the needle a bit.

How long did it take you to get to this point? And how do you deal/ identify/ know you are “done”?
by ripjaygn | 2025-08-16 04:42:36+00:00
> Is this situation right now really "unusable"?

Quite literally unusable because I got blocked by HN from commenting for more than two hours coz of all the politically motivated downvotes. If you have the right politics, keep commenting!

> I'd hope you'd be able to have a conversation

See above, literally not able to have one because I dared to criticize Democrats for their actions and inactions that led to tech job losses for over two years.

> People might disagree with you

I'm open to arguments but looks like people disagree with the facts that I am bringing forward, so they're downvoting to suppress them to lower visibility and to discourage me from participating on here.

It's like on Reddit when you state a plain fact 'Musk founded SpaceX' in reply to a highly upvoted comment that said 'Musk bought all this companies' and get heavily downvoted and even permanently banned in large subs by highly biased moderators.

This place is turning into yet another BlueSky or Reddit where facts don't matter and only a one sided political narrative is pushed at all times. Don't think it's worth engaging. I don't want to be in a place where my comments are deemed so terrible that I get max downvoted and then unable to comment for several hours.

Ironically, such controlling behavior and shutting down of facts, criticism of one side and conversation is leading more and more people to vote for the other side. I am now ashamed of being a lifelong liberal and won't vote democrat till people change this obnoxious partisan behavior on platforms like this one.
by handoflixue | 2025-08-16 04:42:43+00:00
The NEW termination method, from the article, will just say "Claude ended the conversation"

If you get "This conversation was ended due to our Acceptable Usage Policy", that's a different termination. It's been VERY glitchy the past couple of weeks. I've had the most random topics get flagged here - at one point I couldn't say "ROT13" without it flagging me, despite discussing that exact topic in depth the day before, and then the day after!

If you hit "EDIT" on your last message, you can branch to an un-terminated conversation.
by kyboren | 2025-08-16 04:42:54+00:00
Obviously these situations are quite a bit different.

Canada shares a border with the US and is an ocean away from anybody else.

DPRK is an ocean away from the US and shares borders with and enjoyed very credible security guarantees from both China and Russia. DPRK also shares a border with US ally South Korea, whose capital and millions of residents they already held at risk from thousands of hardened artillery positions and mobile launchers.
Best split ergo keyboard(with trackball) for engineers?
by longfeix | 2025-08-16 04:43:24+00:00
Hi, need some recommendations for best split keyboard for coders, that can make me type faster. Any thoughts on these or other ones? One with trackball to control cursor(not the ide lol) would be ideal.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/naya-create/naya-create

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/uniboard/uniboard-the-ergonomic-ai-keyboard-that-reimagines-input

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/keykrush/keykrush-orca-split-ergonomic-keyboard
by atleastoptimal | 2025-08-16 04:43:48+00:00
Thousands have died directly due to known defects in manufactured cars. Those companies (Ford, others) still are operating today.

Even if driverless cars killed more people than humans they would see mass adoption eventually. However they are subject to farr higher scrutiny than human drivers and even so make fewer mistakes, avoid accidents more frequently and can't get drunk, tired, angry, or distracted.
by camil | 2025-08-16 04:45:39+00:00
Thanks! I made a quick update to the Privacy Policy and Terms of use. I will review all legal documents in depth in the following days. Meanwhile, you can check my legal entity informations here: https://www.einforma.com/rapp/ficha/empresas?id=dWSG1MwtU312...

Also here: https://ceo.oepm.es/detalleExpediente?numExp=N0486066
by csoups14 | 2025-08-16 04:45:46+00:00
Or they realize it and they're trying to squeeze the last bit of juice available to them before the party stops. It's not exactly a suboptimal decision to work towards your own job's demise if it's the best paying work available to you and you want to save up as much as possible before any possible disruption. If you quit, someone else steps into the breach and the outcome is all the same. There's very few people actually steering the ship who have any semblance of control; the rest of us are just along for the ride and hoping we don't go down with the ship.
by tempestn | 2025-08-16 04:47:24+00:00
This relates to dealing with people too. A few times I've hired people who seemed to have good interpersonal skills, for people-facing roles. But for some reason, as soon as they were sending an email on behalf of the company, ie. to a customer or supplier, suddenly they're communicating like a soulless corporate automaton. Like, you don't have to pretend to be a cog in a massive corporation; no one actually likes receiving that kind of communication! Perhaps at a certain scale, when you're employing thousands of customer service agents, you'll need them to follow a strict script to maintain quality control. (Or maybe not.) But it's certainly not necessary at a company with single or double digit employees.
by imsh4yy | 2025-08-16 04:47:46+00:00
Author of this post here.

For context, I'm a solo developer building UserJot. I've been recently looking deeper into integrating AI into the product but I've been wanting to go a lot deeper than just wrapping a single API call and calling it a day.

So this blog post is mostly my experience trying to reverse engineer other AI agents and experimenting with different approaches for a bit.

Happy to answer any questions.
by martinvonz | 2025-08-16 04:48:25+00:00
That's correct. It's only on our roadmap so far (https://jj-vcs.github.io/jj/latest/roadmap/#better-support-f...).

We have also talked about doing something similar for tree objects in order to better support very large directories (to reduce the amount of data we need to transfer for them) and very deep directories (to reduce the number of roundtrips to the server). I think we have only talked about that on Discord so far (https://discord.com/channels/968932220549103686/969291218347...). It would not be compatible with Git repos, so it would only really be useful to teams outside Google once there's an external jj-native forge that decides to support it (if our rough design is even realistic).
Show HN: CCCP – a programmable, context-aware compression protocol (early stage)
by brucekaushik | 2025-08-16 04:49:04+00:00
I have been tinkering with an idea I call CCCP — Context-Aware Composable Compression Protocol.

Most compression formats treat the process as a black box: you feed bytes in, you get bytes out. I wanted something programmable and composable, where the format itself can be adapted to different domains — and even customized by different vendors.

So far, CCCP has a few interesting properties:

Composable: Multiple LUTs (look-up tables) and encoding phases can be combined.

Context-aware: Decoding is guided by explicit metadata, not just raw byte streams.

Round-trippable IR: The intermediate representation can reconstruct the original logic before final binary compression.

Programmable: Vendors can plug in their own LUTs, encoders, and decoders.

It is still very early and experimental. Would love to hear if anyone has seen similar approaches, or where this might break down in real-world usage.

Repos:

https://github.com/brucekaushik/cccp

https://github.com/brucekaushik/cccp-python-poc
by matheusmoreira | 2025-08-16 04:49:35+00:00
We've established nothing of the sort. Secrets can be copied just as trivially as any other information. That's why numerous measures are taken to avoid their revelation.

If I tell people my bank credentials, I have nobody but myself to blame when money is transferred out of my accounts.

If I upload my secret encryption keys to some cloud service, I have nobody but myself to blame when others gain the ability to decrypt my data.

Yet I'm expected to feel sorry for would be monopolists who publish works and expect to dictate what you do with them? No.

The effort invested into creation of value is often completely irrelevant, even in copyright law. Many countries do not subscribe to the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, USA included. The ones that do seem to reserve its application for specific contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

Originality is the key factor in copyrightability, not the effort required to generate the content. The number must be unique and not derived from other numbers.
by Pelam | 2025-08-16 04:50:14+00:00
Ie. a political problem as the grandparent said.

Corporations generally follow a narrow somewhat predictable pattern towards some local maxima of their own value extraction. Since world is not zero sum, it produces value for others too.

Where politics (should) enter the picture is where we somehow can see a more global maxima (for all citizens) and try to drive towards it through some political, hopefully democratic means. (Laws, standards, education, investment, infra etc)
by root_axis | 2025-08-16 04:52:45+00:00
> We didn’t design these models to be able to do the majority of the stuff they do. Almost ALL of the their abilities are emergent

Of course we did. Today's LLMs are a result of extremely aggressive refinement of training data and RLHF over many iterations targeting specific goals. "Emergent" doesn't mean it wasn't designed. None of this is spontaneous.

GPT-1 produced barely coherent nonsense but was more statistically similar to human language than random noise. By increasing parameter count, the increased statistical power of GPT-2 was apparent, but what was produced was still obviously nonsense. GPT-3 achieved enough statistical power to maintain coherence over multiple paragraphs and that really impressed people. With GPT-4 and its successors the statistical power became so strong that people started to forget that it still produces nonsense if you let the sequence run long enough.

Now we're well beyond just RLHF and into a world where "reasoning models" are explicitly designed to produce sequences of text that resemble logical statements. We say that they're reasoning for practical purposes, but it's the exact same statistical process that is obvious at GPT-1 scale.

The corollary to all this is that a phenomenon like consciousness has absolutely zero reason to exist in this design history, it's a totally baseless suggestion that people make because the statistical power makes the text easy to anthropomorphize when there's no actual reason to do so.
by anon-3988 | 2025-08-16 04:53:03+00:00
> won’t we all just be doing amazing things all the time. We will be tired of winning ?

There's a future where we won't be because to do the amazing things (tm), we need resources that are beyond what the average company can muster.

That is to say, what if the large companies becomes so magnificiently efficient and productive that it renders the rest of the small company pointless? What if there's no gaps in the software market anymore because it will be automatically detected and solved by the system?
by Fade_Dance | 2025-08-16 04:53:27+00:00
I recently saw someone that posted a leaked system prompt for GPT5 (and regardless of the truth of the matter since I can't confirm the authenticity of the claim, the point I'm making stands alone to some degree).

A portion of the system prompt was specifically instructing the LLM that math problems are, essentially, "special", and that there is zero tolerance for approximation or imprecision with these queries.

To some degree I get the issue here. Most queries are full of imprecision and generalization, and the same type of question may even get a different output if asked in a different context, but when it comes to math problems, we have absolutely zero tolerance for that. To us this is obvious, but when looking from the outside, it is a bit odd that we are so loose and sloppy with, well basically everything we do, but then we put certain characters in a math format, and we are hyper obsessed with ultra precision.

The actual system prompt section for this was funny though. It essentially said "you suck at math, you have a long history of sucking at math in all contexts, never attempt to do it yourself, always use the calculation tools you are provided."
by jklein11 | 2025-08-16 04:53:41+00:00
Calling the early ’80s “Reagan stagflation” isn’t quite right. Stagflation means high inflation and high unemployment at the same time. By 1981–82, inflation was already collapsing — from nearly 14% in 1980 to about 3% by 1983. What remained was a brutal recession with high unemployment, caused by Volcker’s deliberate rate hikes to kill inflation. Painful, yes, but that’s not stagflation anymore. The stagflation era ended with the oil shocks of the ’70s; the early ’80s was the hangover cure, not the disease.
by JSR_FDED | 2025-08-16 04:53:42+00:00
> Think about this for a second. The physical keypad -- exposed to British weather, coated in a mysterious film of protein shake and regret, probably being livestreamed to TikTok by someone's ring doorbell -- accepts my ancient PIN without question. But the digital QR code needs cryptographic rotation that would make the NSA jealous.

Great writing!
by itsalotoffun | 2025-08-16 04:54:31+00:00
> The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that. [Emphasis added]

What a silly premise. Markets don't care. All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

Seeing a real uptick of socio-policital prognostication from extremely smart, soaked-in-AI, tech people (like you Salvatore!), casting heavy doom-laden gestures towards the future. You're not even wrong! But this "I see something you all clearly don't" narrative, wafer thin on real analysis, packed with "the feels", coated with what-ifs.. it's sloppy thinking and I hold you to a higher standard antirez.
by visarga | 2025-08-16 04:57:18+00:00
Verification is the bottleneck, not ideation. LLMs can generate anything on tap, but solving any non-trivial problem requires iteration between thinking, doing and observing outcomes. The real world is too complex to be simulated by AI or humans. The scientific method works the same way, we are not exempt from having to validate our ideas. But as humans we have better feedback and access to context and we can assume risks on our own. AI has no skin and bears no responsibility.

So the missing ingredient for AI is access to environment for feedback learning. It has little to do with AI architecture or datasets. I think a huge source of such data is our human-LLM chat logs. We act as LLM eyes, hands and feed on the ground. We carry the tacit knowledge and social context. OpenAI reports billions of tasks per day, probably trillions of tokens of interactive language combining human, AI and feedback from the environment. Maybe this is how AI can inch towards learning how to solve real world problems, it is part of the loop of problem solving, and benefits from having this data for training.
by kahirsch | 2025-08-16 04:57:34+00:00
The guy behind that page and bitvise appears to have gone totally crazy during the pandemic. On his blog, he said in 2021 "I forecast that 2/3 of those who accept Covid vaccines are going to die by January 1, 2025."

And in 2022, he wrote "Covid-19 is mostly snake venom added to drinking water in selected locations. There may also be a virus, but the main vehicle of hospitalizations is boatloads of powder, mixed in during 'water treatment.' Remdesivir, the main treatment for Covid, is injected snake venom. mRNA vaccines hijack your body to make more snake venom."
by kannanvijayan | 2025-08-16 04:58:03+00:00
I'd argue against the entire perspective of evaluating every policy idea along one-dimensional modernist polemics put forwards as "the least worst solution to all of human economy for all time".

Right now the communists in China are beating us at capitalism. I'm starting to find the entire analytical framework of using these ideologies ("communism", "capitalism") to evaluate _anything_ to be highly suspect, and maybe even one of the west's greatest mistakes in the last century.

> I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional.

I was a teenager back in the 90s. There was much talk then about the productivity boosts from computers, the internet, automation, and how it would enable people to have so much more free time.

Interesting thing is that the productivity gains happened. But the other side of that equation never really materialized.

Who knows, maybe it'll be different this time.
by OneMorePerson | 2025-08-16 04:58:18+00:00
Isn't it the case that companies are always competing and evolving? Unless we see that there's a ceiling to driverless tech that is immediately obvious.

We "made cars work" about 100 years ago, but they have been innovating on that design since then on comfort, efficiency, safety, etc. I doubt the very first version of self driving will have zero ways to improve (although eventually I suppose you would hit a ceiling).
by TZubiri | 2025-08-16 05:03:23+00:00
Certificate by Let's Encrypt, issued to "putty.software" no other info.

Sometimes I feel like we are training users to disregard safety mechanisms for phishing.

Using putty was never the pinnacle of professionalism and open source auditing anyway, it's just a binary you download on windows before you hear the gospel of linux and ssh.
by safety1st | 2025-08-16 05:03:25+00:00
Flawed or not I found a lot of the counterpoints people raised totally fascinating. The most significant point probably being _diyar's, that we've tried multiple approaches and LLMs are currently doing it better than the others. But the more philosophical stuff is fun too like the notion that logic and emotion are not actually separable within human cognitive processes, so why would you assume logic will end up off in its own little box in an artificial intelligence. I mean what a fascinating field of inquiry
by nilespotter | 2025-08-16 05:03:39+00:00
> It’s an odd form of white supremacy that views whites as above having material interests of their own.

This is also an interesting way to explain the self-immolating Whites, which nowadays is most of us. Any sort of White group identity or collective interest is absolute heresy which must be opposed, while all things in the collective interest of non-Whites must be celebrated, encouraged, and helped along at our own expense. There's a certain paternalistic arrogance to it, an ethnocentric assumption that other races can't get on without us. And it's much more common and pervasive than the caricature of the like shaved head neo-Nazi we are all expected to imagine exists in large numbers, somewhere.
by hansvm | 2025-08-16 05:07:35+00:00
Cycles are often not what you're trying to measure with something like this. You care about whether the program has higher latency, higher inverse throughput, and other metrics denominated in wall-clock time.

Cycles are a fine thing to measure when trying to reason about pieces of an algorithm and estimate its cost (e.g., latency and throughput tables for assembly instructions are invaluable). They're also a fine thing to measure when frequency scaling is independent of the instructions being executed (since then you can perfectly predict which algorithm will be faster independent of the measurement noise).

That's not the world we live in though. Instructions cause frequency scaling -- some relatively directly (like a cost for switching into heavy avx512 paths on some architectures), some indirectly but predictably (physical limits on moving heat off the chip without cryo units), some indirectly but unpredictably (moving heat out of a laptop casing as you move between having it on your lap and somewhere else). If you just measure instruction counts, you ignore effects like the "faster" algorithm always throttling your CPU 2x because it's too hot.

One of the better use cases for something like RDTSC is when microbenchmarking a subcomponent of a larger algorithm. You take as your prior that no global state is going to affect performance (e.g., not overflowing the branch prediction cache), and then the purpose of the measurement is to compute the delta of your change in situ, measuring _only_ the bits that matter to increase the signal to noise.

In that world, I've never had the variance you describe be a problem. Computers are fast. Just bang a few billion things through your algorithm and compare the distributions. One might be faster on average. One might have better tail latency. Who knows which you'll prefer, but at least you know you actually measured the right thing.

For that matter, even a stddev of 80% isn't that bad. At $WORK we frequently benchmark the whole application even for changes which could be microbencmarked. Why? It's easier. Variance doesn't matter if you just run the test longer.

You have a legitimate point in some cases. E.g., maybe a CLI tool does a heavy amount of work for O(1 second). Thermal throttling will never happen in the real world, but a sustained test would have throttling (and also different branch predictions and whatnot), so counting cycles is a reasonable proxy for the thing you actually care about.

I dunno; it's complicated.
by astrange | 2025-08-16 05:08:03+00:00
It's not officially recognized because it's just something a guy with a blog made up. It has a fancy sciencey sounding name to cover up that a guy with a blog made it up.

It doesn't seem to be particularly exclusive to ADHD; to me it sounds like it's just anxiety.

Note that the guy who made it up advocates a specific medication regime for it that you probably aren't taking.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/14/ssc-survey-results-adh...
by tqi | 2025-08-16 05:08:34+00:00
IMO it's far too early for "AI" to have had a meaningful effect on Software company hiring. A more plausible explanation for me is that between roughly 2012 and 2022, there was a tremendous increase in the supply of SWE talent (via undergraduate CS programs massively increasing enrollment, boot camps, immigration, etc), fueled primarily by ZIRP. On the demand side, ZIRPy VC funding primarily went to bullshit Crypto and (to a lesser extent) bullshit Metaverse companies, most of which have not panned out, meaning there is a dearth of late stage and newly public companies to hire said talent.