MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by shlant | 2025-08-06 13:54:45+00:00
know what makes it easier to fix/change your environment? when you aren't obese and everything in life is so much harder.

Guess what? you can both take ozempic AND fix the problems that caused the need to self-medicate with food (for example). In fact, I would be willing to bet that we see research coming out in the next couple years that shows people who lose weight with GLP-1's then go on to make better lifestyle choices because they confer many benefits that are much more obvious and attainable when you aren't obese and just fighting to get around in daily life.

It's a two-way issue - having some problems result in you being obese, but being obese also creates problems, makes them worse, and harder to address. Mental health issues for example can both cause obesity and be caused by obesity - if you aren't obese anymore then your mental health improves and you can then go onto address other issues you might not have been able to otherwise.

Lastly, you talk about "the system" as if that's not a two way relationship. People who have unhealthy habits they have trouble controlling create demand for services and products that are unhealthy - but if you have less people with unhealthy habits then that demand reduces and so do those unhealthy supplies.
by Etheryte | 2025-08-06 13:55:06+00:00
I think Jacobsen vs Katzer [0] is the most relevant one to the discussion here, but there a number of successful cases on this front. If memory serves, BusyBox has also managed to enforce GPL in court on a number of occasions.

[0] https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/jacobsen-v-katzer
by sirwhinesalot | 2025-08-06 13:55:08+00:00
In my home country we have this story: a person goes to the doctor and complains "Doctor! It hurts when I touch my knee!" to which the doctor replies "then stop touching your knee."

Contrary to popular belief you won't be left behind if you don't use these "agents". If they ever get good enough that they don't need babysitting anymore and make you 10x productive, then you can simply adopt their use then. Any current skillset regarding prompting won't stay relevant.

Though I will caveat that I work on more niche subjects, not frontend, so my perception of their usefulness may be skewed.
by sjw987 | 2025-08-06 13:55:11+00:00
I get the impression you're just conflating "shortcut" with "progress", based off of the original Plato example.

You clearly know what I was implying with many of the examples there and spun them into different directions. You don't want builders who take shortcuts building critical infrastructure to save time or hassle, nor do you want to be treated by a doctor who took shortcuts in their education and training.

If you want to become a professional athlete or sports person, tried and testing training methods, nutrition etc. aren't shortcuts. You still need to do those things consistently for years and years (much like staying in shape in general).

If somebody seriously wants to lose weight, they need to discipline themselves to eat better (and maybe supplement that with exercise). Just taking a shortcut weight loss jab without taking anything from it will just lead to the weight going back on (as in crash dieting), becoming an indefinite user of these drugs, or failing completely if the drugs ever become unavailable or develop long term side effects.
by neciudan | 2025-08-06 13:56:02+00:00
React’s key prop is usually associated with list rendering. But deep in the docs is a subtle line:

If the key changes, React throws out the old component and builds a new one.

This means you can treat key as a soft reset. When the key changes, the component is recreated from scratch, with a fresh state and no cleanup needed.

I recorded a short (100-second) video showing how I’ve used this to:

- Reset forms when switching users

- Avoid useEffect state management

Would love to hear how others are using this pattern—or if there are caveats I’ve missed.
by Cthulhu_ | 2025-08-06 13:56:06+00:00
I suspect this is true for a lot of software; a modern-day JVM can still run Java from 20 years ago as long as you didn't do anything weird, Linux hasn't significantly changed since then, the web is one of the most widely supported and standardized platform out there with the 1996 Space Jam website still working and rendering today as it was back then (your screen just got bigger).

Is software rot real? I'm sure, but it's not in the runtime. It's likely in the availability and compatibility of dependencies, and mainly the Node ecosystem.
by arkonrad | 2025-08-06 13:56:15+00:00
I’ve been leaning more toward open-source LLMs lately. They’re not as hyper-optimized for performance, which actually makes them feel more like the old-school OpenAI chats-you could just talk to them. Now it’s like you barely finish typing and the model already force-feeds you an answer. Feels like these newer models are over-tuned and kind of lost that conversational flow.
by game_the0ry | 2025-08-06 13:56:32+00:00
I know I am going to get some hate for this from the "Python-stans" but..."python" and "performance" should never be associated with each other, and same for any scripting/interpreted programming language. Especially if it has a global interpreter lock.

While performance (however you may mean that) is always a worthy goal, you may need to question your choice of language if you start hitting performance ceilings.

As the saying goes - "Use the right tool for the job." Use case should dictate tech choices, with few exceptions.

Ok, now that I have said my piece, now you can down vote me :)
by adlpz | 2025-08-06 13:56:44+00:00
100%. It's truly infuriating, but going back to my normal workflow now feels somehow wasteful. Like I'm able to rely on a team of devs for busywork and just deciding to do it by hand and overcharge my clients (in time).

I've had a few instances where I've been able to go into flow state with 3 concurrent sessions on fully disjoint projects. Feels like context switching is easier when there's almost zero cognitive overlap between the projects in terms of actual features, but the stacks are all similar.

But for sure I haven't even come closer to these glorious flow sessions fully locked into coding some clever bit of logic.

So, here for the suggestions too.
by Shank | 2025-08-06 13:56:50+00:00
I think this is a net good in the long term. Even if you completely exclude obvious benefits, like being able to support more APIs than Safari, it forces Apple to actually compete with other browsers and implement things if they start getting real market share.

Not that you really should, but Safari has a limit of 500 tabs. Why? It's arbitrary. Safari doesn't support WebRequest in blocking mode, so you can't have real adblockers (just MV3 style content blockers, like uBOL). There are all sorts of edge cases too, like if you want cross-browser sync and extensions. Sure, you can totally run Safari with extension support, but extensions in e.g., Orion are shaky at best.

The biggest claim that Apple made about this whole thing was that web browsers offered an attack surface increase as a result of giving JIT to other browsers, and they could be owned. Frankly, though, I would take a browser without JIT if I had a real adblocker.
by tetris11 | 2025-08-06 13:57:17+00:00
Thanks for the quick intro into UV, it looks like docker layers for python

I found the TTS a bit slow so I piped the output into ffplay with 1.2x speedup to make it sound a bit better

uvx --from git+https://github.com/akx/KittenTTS.git@pr-21-22-24-25 kittentts --text "I serve 12 different beers at my restaurant for over 1000000 customers" --voice expr-voice-3-m --output - | ffplay -af "atempo=1.2" -f wav -
by jillesvangurp | 2025-08-06 13:57:18+00:00
Development experience of AI tools is becoming the biggest blocker. And a large part of that is performance (in time, not qualitatively).

Most of us are doing relatively simple things like using with the largest/slowest models possible instead of downgrading to a smaller model. Reason: our tools lack the ability to escalate to more expensive models as needed and switching models manually is tedious. Ideally, a cheap locally running model would be first in line and respond quickly for quick things.

And then there's the whole asynchronous vs. synchronous thing. With Codex, it runs in a browser and it allows you to create a pull request whenever it is done. You can work on multiple pull requests with it even and it might work in parallel.

What's good about the Codex experience is that your input is only needed at the end. What's bad is that it takes ages. Even for simple stuff. Like a simple follow up question results in it boiling the oceans to startup the container again.

Slow AI is exactly like slow builds: frustrating and likely to distract you. If it's going to take a minute you are going to do something else. And that might not be work related. So it breaks your flow because you are sitting on your hands and filling your short term memory with garbage. Context switches are expensive (and break flow). Our brains don't do that well. And then you forget to switch back so you lose time.

I don't use reasoning models that much for this reason. It's easier and faster for me to manually patch up my code with whatever the LLM says I should fix. And on larger repositories the chance of a good PR drops sharply. So, even if it takes more context micromanagement to feed it all the detail it needs, this can be faster and more effective. And I get an answer in a few seconds instead of in a few minutes.
by andrewla | 2025-08-06 13:58:02+00:00
I think both easy to understand, and also it seems very obvious that non-deterministic Turing machines are more powerful than deterministic ones. It feels almost like a non-deterministic Turing machine is more powerful almost in the sense that a halting oracle is more powerful.

The insane thing is that non-deterministic Turing machines are computable at all! It really feels like they belong to a different class of "magical" computers, or an axiom-of-choice / Banach-Tarski naval-gazing infeasible trick. You mean, you just "guess" the answers and your program will get the right answer?

But they are computable; the Church-Turing model of computation is fantastically powerful. Now the problem is just "feasibility" and "complexity". It seems to the initiate that there must be an answer hiding just around the next corner because it's SO OBVIOUS but in the end if you give someone n^100 time they can solve any problem that you care to pose but that still counts as P, so you're not going to stumble upon some grand insight.
by 4b11b4 | 2025-08-06 13:58:11+00:00
> "Social problems that engineers can't fix"

Sounds similar to social media.

Otherwise, yes, I am very concerned about society's use of LLMs -- particularly young people (students).

But now the very teachers themselves... Frankly, not surprised.

I've been using it to make me a much better tutor/mentor. But the cases outlined in (I'm assuming) the public education sector are very, very worrisome.
by ApolloFortyNine | 2025-08-06 13:58:15+00:00
How has chrome abused there'd position? Generally from what I've seen most of their standards are sane and improve the web.

I was told they were breaking adblockers, using ublock lite which complies with the changes I don't notice a difference. And even this change I could have switched browsers it didn't break the web.

There's some pwa features only they support, and that's a feature I think could actually benefit me.
by toss1 | 2025-08-06 13:58:18+00:00
>>Why would they call it anything else when it can drive itself from point A to point B without any interventions most of the time

Why?

Because the FACT is that you must put in the caveat MOST OF THE TIME, or someone is likely to die.

If they were honest they would call it "Supervised Mostly Self Driving". Even "Supervised Self Driving — you mostly supervise, not drive!" would be accurate.

Again, go to any dictionary and find the definition of "Full". Websters:

>>1 containing as much or as many as is possible or normal

>>2a complete especially in detail, number, or duration

>>2b lacking restraint, check, or qualification

>>2c having all distinguishing characteristics : enjoying all authorized rights and privileges

>>2d not lacking in any essential : perfect

The problem is Tesla and you are attempting to literally change the definition of "Full" to mean "Not Full".

This is lying or deceiving yourself, and deceiving others.

Recognize facts and that language actually has meaning, and stop being part of the problem. Or continue watching your hero lose lawsuits.
by bayindirh | 2025-08-06 13:58:36+00:00
I'm pretty astounded that "The Stack" at least did and effort, and continue to do so by weeding out GPL or similar strong copyleft source code from their trove, and even implemented an opt-out mechanism [0].

They look like saints when compared to today's companies.

[0]: https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigcode/in-the-stack
by richwater | 2025-08-06 13:58:41+00:00
The NYT is moving more and more into scaremongering articles. This is a great example where the title says "Sexual Assault" but within the article it mentions the vast majority are nothing near as serious as assault (but obviously still a problem).

The article does not compare or contrast the rates to other industries, situations or just living life in general. My comment is not to absolve Uber, but rather point out that the article does not do a good job at proving that Uber is any more dangerous than a variety of other places/activities/things.
by benoau | 2025-08-06 13:58:46+00:00
20 years ago it was much easier, you could ethically use tables for layouts which semantically did not make much sense, but in terms of code structure it was very simple: this table is the full size of the page, this cell is the header with this height, this cell is the sidebar with this width, this cell occupies the rest of the space with content positioned in the middle, all expressible without any styling at all.
by nu11ptr | 2025-08-06 13:58:46+00:00
I would argue this isn't true. It is a big part of what makes it slow. The fastest interpreted languages are one to two orders of magnitude slower than for example C/C++/Rust. If your language does math 20-100 times slower than C, it isn't fast from a user perspective. Full stop. It might, however, have a "fast interpreter". Remember, the user doesn't care if it is a fast for an interpreted language, they are just trying to obtain their objective (aka do math as fast as possible). They can get cache locality perfect, and Python would still be very slow (from a math/computation perspective).
by krapp | 2025-08-06 13:59:07+00:00
There is no "document" or "application" model, the distinction is mostly just vibes.

News sites are meant to be read, therefore they are "documents." They are also applications, because all websites, even static ones, are also applications. Once you add hyperlinks and external resources, it ceases to be purely a document.

Adding a script tag to an HTML page doesn't transform it from one to the other.
by screye | 2025-08-06 13:59:28+00:00
There was a greater awareness of exactly what I'd written. By definition, I would not have written those bugs in, as long as I had known edge cases in my mind.

Lapses of judgement and syntax errors happen, but they're easier to spot because you know exactly what you're looking at. When code is written by a model, I have to review it 3 times.

1st to understand the code. 2nd to identify lapses in suspicious areas. 3rd to confirm my suspicions through interactive tests, because the model can use patterns I'm unfamiliar with, and it takes me some googling to confirm if certain patterns used by the model are outright bugs or not. The biggest time sink is fixing an identified bug, because now you're doing it in someone-else's (model's) legacy code rather than a greenfield feature implementation.

It's a big productivity bump. But, if reviewing is the bottleneck, then that upper bounds the productivity gains at ~4x for me. Still incredible technology, but the death of software-engineering that it is claimed to be.
Show HN: Should – Expressive Assertions for Go
by andrey-1201 | 2025-08-06 14:00:09+00:00
Hey folks. Hope you're all doing well.

We released should a few weeks ago. It's a lightweight assertion library for Go with zero dependencies and expressive error messages. It was made to make debugging test failures easier, with a very simple and straightforward API.

We’re keeping things lean, focusing on practical asserts and a smooth developer experience. The current version (v0.1.0) is stable and ready for real-world use while we continue to improve it based on feedback.

Take a look at the docs and let us know what you think. Appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

Repo: https://github.com/Kairum-Labs/should
by vemv | 2025-08-06 14:00:10+00:00
I'm happily using https://github.com/stevemolitor/claude-code.el which is a mere terminal wrapper (including a nifty Transient menu). But just by virtue of running inside Emacs you get a lot of power - it didn't take me a lot of effort to create an efficient, customized workflow that felt much more streamlined than my older iTerm usage.

I'll keep an eye on this new offering though.

There's also https://github.com/editor-code-assistant/eca-emacs which comes from the author of clojure-lsp, a very popular package within the Clojure community. I'd also been wanting to try it.

For both of the more advanced offerings, I tend to be a little cautious when adopting tools I'm trusting my productivity to. Most ambitious projects need to iron out misc stuff during their 'big bang' phase.
by pjerem | 2025-08-06 14:00:36+00:00
Interestingly I feel quite the opposite but it depends on the job.

Bootstrapping things like a new project ? Yeah, things can be too fast for me to stay in the flow.

But my day to day is about working with already existing code which I have to modify and here, AI is exactly the opposite : it helps me drill down boring and legacy code. I helps me stay in the flow because I can ask questions about the code. I can ask it where is the code that does X, I can ask it how it currently works. I can describe my issue, let it analyze the code and ask it to make proposals to solve my issue. Then I discuss the options, then I let it implement the one "we" agreed upon, then I review and I discuss the solution.

In fact I stay in flow because I don't feel alone with my issues and my questions. Maybe it says more about my work environment where I cannot pair as much as I wanted to but at least I have Cursor/Claude/Whatever.

However not having that continuous interaction and hoping the AI to solve your Jira ticket in one prompt is going to be a disaster for your focus and you will not trust the result enough.

Overall, it makes my job less miserable when I'm doing boring things.
by lenerdenator | 2025-08-06 14:00:50+00:00
Generally speaking, the lower the prime interest rate, the lower the returns on "safer" investments like certificates of deposit, sometimes below the rate of inflation. As a bank, why would you borrow from local depositors when you could borrow from the central banking system and pay less in interest?

People like my parents, who are both 65, could just park their money at a local bank and have an FDIC-insured savings instrument that roughly tracks inflation and helps invest in the local economy. They don't have to worry about cokeheads in lower Manhattan making bets that endanger their retirements like they have numerous times.

If they do that with lower interest rates, they're more likely to lose money instead of preserving it or slightly increasing it. Which, of course, gives the cokeheads more money to gamble with.
by crabbone | 2025-08-06 14:00:59+00:00
Again and again, the most important question is "why?" not "how?". Python isn't made to be fast. If you wanted a language that can go fast, you needed to build it into the language from the start: give developers tools to manage memory layout, give developers tools to manage execution flow, hint the compiler about situations that present potential for optimization, restrict dispatch and polymorphism, restrict semantics to fewer interpretations.

Python has none of that. It's a hyper-bloated language with extremely poor design choices all around. Many ways of doing the same thing, many ways of doing stupid things, no way of communicating programmer's intention to the compiler... So why even bother? Why not use a language that's designed by a sensible designer for this specific purpose?

The news about performance improvements in Python just sound to me like spending useful resources on useless goals. We aren't going forward by making Python slightly faster and slightly more bloated, we just make this bad language even harder to get rid of.
by ForOldHack | 2025-08-06 14:01:02+00:00
That was both it's charm,and it's notoriousness. I was using it, but when the blob thing became a concern, me and the guy who recommended it, stopped using it,and now it's more of a curiosity, but no longer used. EFI is basically crippleware now,and two dev friends of mine just bought macs, leaving me their Lenovo collections. Two X1 carbons and three T590s.
by blahgeek | 2025-08-06 14:01:20+00:00
Like LSP and tree-sitter, I think AI coding tools like Claude Code or Aider are very good news for niche editors like Emacs or Vim. Instead of struggling about implementing advanced IDE-like features, they can integrate with these tools relatively easily, and focus on other editing related features that set them apart. In fact, IMO it makes these editors more competitive because they are highly customizable and easier to integrate with these tools.
by danielbln | 2025-08-06 14:01:36+00:00
Not to be overly snide, but I can imagine that almost every person who writes long, tedious emails that wax on and on thinks they have something novel and interesting that truly needs extra space. Also, most novel things are composed of pedestrian things, which LLMs have no issue summarizing sufficiently.

Maybe you can provide an example where this case would occur, and maybe some indication how often you think this would occur.
by Teever | 2025-08-06 14:01:36+00:00
Recent war games paint a dire picture in a near-term hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan.[0] They show the US tenuously holding Taiwan at the cost of two aircraft carriers, several dozen other ships, hundreds of aircraft and the depletion of hundreds anti-ship missiles that have a production lead time of months to years and measly annual production rates.

At the same time China continues to stockpile commodities[1] and holds an overwhelming advantage in ship building production capacity over the US[2].

America may currently have an advantage in power projection over China, but they lack the industrial base to sustain any sort of attack as their ship building and missile building capacity is completely atrophied. China just needs to hold the line in the first conflict with the US and then they can quickly rebuild what they lost and launch barrages of drones at Taiwan.

As for how China can disrupt American industrial capacity? At first it will probably be a combination of unorthodox techniques including cyberattacks, agit-prop disruption techniques with social media, 5th column disruption like what we're seeing in Russia, and perhaps more exotic things like autonomous submarines that launch drones to attack infrastructure near the coast, or perhaps more of those balloons that they were using for surveillance but instead of surveillance equipment they'll contain drone swarms to be released over vital infrastructure or tinderbox forests.

It is unlikely that America will risk sending any B-52s over China and it's also unlikely that F-35s will pose any long term risk to Chinese industrial capacity given the brittle F-35 supply chain.

A war with China will be about whoever can produce more cheap weapons faster while deploying them in unexpected ways and China without a doubt wins that race.

[0] https://selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites...

[1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/07/23/w...

[2] https://www.csis.org/analysis/china-dominates-shipbuilding-i...