MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by schappim | 2025-08-17 21:30:18+00:00
What's striking about "anti-ageing" research is how it keeps circling back to the same boring truths: don’t smoke, keep your weight down, move often, sleep properly, keep blood pressure and cholesterol in check, and go easy on the booze.

If something makes an overweight, sedentary smoker hit 100, then it’s a miracle drug. Please let me know if/when you've seen that drug...
by talideon | 2025-08-17 21:31:18+00:00
Those CNC-made cabinets are driven by software written by a human being. And I'm not talking about the CNC software itself: CNC machine operators _code_, even if it's not obvious to those who don't know somebody who works with CNC machines. They provide descriptions to the machine in the form of M-Code and G-Code.

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

(I know this because my previous landlady's husband was a CNC machine operator.)
by TZubiri | 2025-08-17 21:31:29+00:00
I see, I think in that case the raw video format would still be the source code along with the EDL. What I'm suggesting is that the raw footage would still be an output from the source code that would be the script and the filming plans.

Silly idea, but it's worth thinking about this stuff in an era where the line between source code and target code is being blurred with prompts.
by ozim | 2025-08-17 21:32:13+00:00
There are older cars that have the same safety features as new ones but those cars are still expensive. I don’t remember any super novel safety feature that came up in last 10 to 15 years. Especially ones that could be just added to any car. Crumple zones are model specific you can’t just change those without making new car.

Besides that older cars are less safe because they are old not because they lack safety features.

That airbag 15 years old might or might not work. You have 300k kilometers driven there will be rust here and there.
by pxc | 2025-08-17 21:33:01+00:00
The EQ test I took had a component that was questions like this.

I'm not sure how meaningful it is for me given that I've been visually impaired my whole life. Nowadays, I can rarely see the eyes of strangers.

But I did kinda hate questions like this, found them unpleasant to think through. I scored normal on the overall EQ test, but didn't do as well on the portion related to reading eyes or faces.

It's interesting to imagine being able to intuitively breeze through a test like that, as well as how much information or precision is missing from my perceptual world!

I wonder how the eye test might or might not correlate with a similar test centered on voices. I feel like I can interpret voices much more easily. Maybe I'd do a little better there?
by SamInTheShell | 2025-08-17 21:33:20+00:00
Genuine question, why are people confused on what user input is here?

Suppose the game is a solo game primarily with additional multiplayer features. The agreement there is simply that they enter multiplayer with a valid game state (edit: you validate on join).

Upon entering multiplayer, monitoring begins. Player moves, is it valid? Player shoots gun. Is this valid? Ray cast reached target and does damage. Was that valid?

Did you track the player state during the replication streaming? If no, then there are user input validation gaps.

To be completely fair, most people aren't out writing their own game engine to account for this stuff and it's a lot of work to do that. None of the major game engines on the market do this.

In large database systems, log replication occurs all over the place and validation takes place (some systems better than others for sure). Difficult to implement, sure, but when you know, track, and monitor the state; you can validate and respond.
by rustystump | 2025-08-17 21:33:20+00:00
Flagging seems so odd to me. Your interpretation of rules is not the same as others. Downvote it sure, but i dont like the idea of disappearing no matter how lame it is.

I explicitly enable flagged and dead because sometimes there are nuggets in there which provide interesting context to what people think.

I will never flag anything. I dont get it.
by TZubiri | 2025-08-17 21:34:06+00:00
Isn't it? In practice it means that the "video" should live outside of the git repo, you could just download it from an external repo, and you always have the script to recreate it if it ever goes down.

For example:

PromotionalDemo.mp4.script

"Make a video 10 seconds long showcasing the video, a voice in off should say 'We can click here if we want to do this, or click there if we want to go there'. 1024*768 resolution. Male voice. Perky attitude"
by dsign | 2025-08-17 21:35:10+00:00
I have noticed the same and tbh it’s annoying as hell. But also to be honest, never before have humans been so determined to pour so much money, effort and attention into something you need a complicated soul to not interpret as utterly reckless. In a way, the AI thing is as exciting as going to the Coliseum to watch war prisoners gut each other, with the added thrill of knowing the gladiators will come out of the circle any minute to do the thing to the public, and you watch and fret and listen to the guy behind you gush about those big muscles on the gladiators which one day will be so good for building roads. It’s really hard to pass on it.
by dml2135 | 2025-08-17 21:35:31+00:00
That $6,000 would be about $13,000 today.

That is a very manageable amount of debt.

Many people have student debts that are 10-20x that, or more. Minimum payments of thousands of dollars a month, and no ability to discharge them through bankruptcy.

You can take on a few thousand dollars of debt as a young adult, realize you made a mistake, grind to pay it off and chalk it up as a life lesson.

We are letting young adults today make mistakes that they will never get an opportunity to learn from, because they will be paying for it their entire life. It is vastly different from your example.
by mikestew | 2025-08-17 21:35:49+00:00
I feel like there's very little engineering reasons why we can't...

It's not an engineering problem. One could cut new holes in the front bumper of an old car, add forward-facing radar, tack on a display and a computer to drive it all, et voila! Now you have collision avoidance! Except even in volume, you've probably spent more than the car is worth (labor will be the killer, not hardware), or enough that the person whose economics dictate an older car can't afford the upgrade.

Lane keeping? I don't even want to think about what that retrofit would involve.
by mikewarot | 2025-08-17 21:36:55+00:00
>drivers lose wayfinding sense with GPS

My experience is the opposite. I find that while Google maps on my phone is a more than suitable replacement for the now almost impossible to get road Atlas of my youth, with the expanded metropolitan maps that were always out of date, my skills haven't been degrading. I'm now able to get real time feedback of traffic conditions to make better choices between routes I know by heart.

Just this past week I took a friend to visit someone out in the far suburbs, I used Google maps to get there, but he was astonished that I was completely comfortable driving home without it, despite all the twists and turns of modern US suburbs.

My experience with LLMs generating code is similar, they are better guides than the old school method of reading the manual and other books, but I remain able to get a handle on the code written when necessary.
by reactordev | 2025-08-17 21:38:14+00:00
If you knew how an art pipeline worked, you would. An artist is usually one in an array of artists that completes a model. The pipeline starts with concept artists (easily AI now), turnaround (AI is hit or miss here), modeling (this phase), texturing (could be another artist), baking (normally a texture artists job but depending on material complexity and whether it’s for film, technical artist), rendering if needed.

Then you have sub specialties. Rigging, animation, texturing, environments, props, characters, effects.

It’s a fascinating process.
by haswell | 2025-08-17 21:38:14+00:00
> Questions can be neutral but questioning is probably negative

The ethos of HN is to err on the side of assuming good faith and the strongest possible interpretation of other's positions, and to bring curiosity first and foremost. Curiosity often leads to questions.

Can you clarify what you mean by distinguishing between "questions" and "questioning"? How or why is one neutral while the other is probably negative?

I'll also point out that I'm questioning you here, not out of negativity, but because it's a critical aspect of communication.

> In what world does "criticism" not default to "negative"?

Criticism is what we each make of it. If you frame it as a negative thing, you'll probably find negativity. If you frame it as an opportunity to learn/expand on a critical dialogue, good things can come from it.

While I understand what you're getting at and get that some people are overly critical in a "default to negative" way, I've come to deeply appreciate constructive, thoughtful criticism from people I respect, and in those context, I don't think summing it up as "negative" really captures what's happening.

If you're building a product, getting friendly and familiar with (healthy) criticism is critical, and when applied correctly will make the product much better.
by hirvi74 | 2025-08-17 21:38:31+00:00
I remember when I took the WAIS-IV. While, I did not have access to how the test was scored, I am not certain that a few sections of the test could not be open to interpretation.

#Story below, feel free to skip:#

One section involved comparing and contrasting two words. I remember one of the questions being "practical vs. pragmatic." For the differences, I really wanted to say, "There is no such thing as a pragmatic joke!" However, I do not know if that would have been accepted or not.

On the symbol matching part of the test, I kind of got into it with the psychologist. In that section, there was a key at the top of the page that presented multiple different symbols all with an associated a number. There was somewhere between 25 and 50 of these symbol questions on the page in random order. For example, question one would be a square, and I would write '3', question 2 would be circle, and I would write '5', and so on.

Upon seeing this section of the test, I figured out, "Why not just fill in all the squares with '3', then do all the circle problems, then the triangle problems, etc.?" Well, I started to do just that, and the psychologist freaked out. "No! The test was not designed to be solved that way. You have to solve all the questions in sequential order." Of course, being the impulsive ADHD person I am, I said, "What do you mean? It's my test. I don't give a fuck how it was designed." After a bit more back-and-forth arguing, it was at that point the psychologist then told me, "Time is ticking!" Well, I started to freak out a bit, because I had no idea the test was timed. The psychologist never even told me prior to that moment. So, I became even more unmotivated after that interaction, and occasionally would give the wrong answer to some questions that were ridiculously easy just to see what would happen -- would the psychologist even notice or care? No, he didn't. But I did realize one thing: IQ is not solely a measurement of intelligence, because clearly I could fuck with it a bit, and the test couldn't measure me lack of earnest motivation. Though, in the end it doesn't really even matter because that test informed me of nothing I (nor anyone else that knew me) already didn't know. Wow, I don't have a severe mental disability nor am I the next Von Neumann. Glad to see over a hundred years of psychometric research has truly amounted to a lot...
by DyslexicAtheist | 2025-08-17 21:38:36+00:00
your Nietzsche reference made me wonder about one of his other sayings that if you stare into the abyss for too long the abyss will stare into you. And that seems fitting with how AI responses are always phrased in a way that make you feel like you're the genius for even asking a specific question. And if we spend more time engaging with AI (which tricks us emotionally) will we also change our behavior and expect everyone else treating us like a genius in every interaction? What NLP does AI perform on humans that we haven't become aware of yet?
by SillyUsername | 2025-08-17 21:38:39+00:00
No but therapists like AI are not your friends.

They're there for the money as nobody else would listen to this kind of thing day in day out for free.

Your money stops - poof your therapist vanishes, not even a personal follow up call asking if you're ok, and I know this to be true from secondhand experience.

You can't heap your problems on friends either or one day you'll find they'll give up speaking to you.

So what options do you have left? A person who takes money from you to listen to you, friends you may lose, or you speak with an AI, but at least you know the AI doesn't feel for you by design.
by star-glider | 2025-08-17 21:38:58+00:00
Agree--ABP is not the most sympathetic defendant here, but I don't see how good actors like uBlock Origin wouldn't also be caught up in this.

Granted, I don't know how they'd actually enforce an adblocker ban, but this is a country in which it is illegal to call politicians "idiots," and they will literally break down your door and arrest you if you do: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/man-s-home-raided-after...

So, while I don't think it's likely, it's certainly not outrageous to think that a publisher could detect that you're not downloading certain content (just like how various anti-adblock scripts function) and request that police go to your address, arrest you and check your computers for "illicit adblockers."
by FollowingTheDao | 2025-08-17 21:40:11+00:00
This is useless. It takes zero account of genetic variability. I can tell you several of those things on that list that will decrease my lifespan.

If you care about your personal lifespan, you should care about your personal genetics and your personal heritage.

This was the same stupidity we saw with the blue zones. They didn’t think for a minute that these people lived for a long time because they were eating the foods they grew up on for generations.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-08-17 21:41:46+00:00
> I have always been pretty effective as a dev

> LLMs make the easy stuff easier

I think this is the observation that's important right now. If you're an expert that isn't doing a lot of boilerplate, LLMs don't have value to you right now. But they can acceptably automate a sizeable number of entry-level jobs. If those get flushed out, that's an issue, as not everyone is going to be a high-level expert.

Long-term, the issue is we don't know where the ceiling is. Just because OpenAI is faltering doesn't mean that we've hit that ceiling yet. People talk about the scaling laws as a theoretical boundary, but it's actually the opposite. It shows that the performance curve could just keep going up even with brute force, which has never happened before in the history of statistics. We're in uncharted territory now, so there's good reason to keep an eye on it.
by jqpabc123 | 2025-08-17 21:42:06+00:00
What he was insisting on was religious devotion to an unproven and questionable methodology.

What his workers were insisting on was convincing evidence that it was anything else.

The failure here is his --- a failure to provide rational leadership.

Cults assume many different forms with varied belief systems. The fired workers may not realize it yet but they are probably lucky to exit early and leave this dysfunctional cult environment behind.
by aspenmayer | 2025-08-17 21:42:09+00:00
> The submission form says, "If there is a url, text is optional," and indeed most submissions with a url provide no text.

I think that's because most folks don't know how to do it or aren't able to do so. I don't know how some folks make text posts underneath their URL submissions, unless they are asking mods for help or using some kind of special post type like Ask HN/Show HN. Even then I'm not sure if that's all that is needed for users alone to make these kinds of text+URL submissions without mod intervention.

So if you are saying that this is a thing that is already supported but not used, can you link to such a post that you have made? As it is, I'm not sure that HN even lets you make posts like that.

Otherwise, I guess you can be the change you wish to see, but the guidelines argue directly against the point you're making, basically saying that commentary (which would include a blurb or summary) should go in a comment, not in the submission itself. No one is stopping you from summarizing articles, but just know that AI/LLM and other kinds of generated commentary is against HN guidelines to my reading also, so you would have to do that yourself. It seems likely that what you're asking for would result in more rehashing and less original content, but if that rehashing serves some kind of useful editorial function to raise awareness of content that is otherwise relevant and topical to HN and to its users, then your idea might have some potential merit, but I think it would be gamed by bad actors, and I think the bad actors would benefit more from this change than good actors and existing/future HN users.

I'm cautiously pessimistic on this idea, but willing to hear more about why you think it would help rather than allow charlatans and sophists to invisibly rewrite history and the present to bake in their own ideology and beliefs.
by bakugo | 2025-08-17 21:44:24+00:00
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the primary purpose of an ORM. It's in the name - Object Relational Mapper. It's meant to ease the mapping from SQL query results into objects in your code, and from objects back to SQL queries. Doing this manually at scale when you have a large number of tables is also a nightmare.

There's no rule saying you can't integrate your own manually written SQL with an ORM, and in fact, any production-ready, feature-complete ORM will allow you do it, because it's effectively a requirement for any non-trivial use case.
by bilater | 2025-08-17 21:44:33+00:00
I try not to fall into posting generic content. Instead, I focus on sharing real things I’ve built or done, hoping they’re actually useful for someone. For example, my last post was about a weekend app I put together, and I always try to include a link to the app or a github repo so people can try it out for themselves.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/biltahir_sometimes-i-get-into...
by userbinator | 2025-08-17 21:44:44+00:00
I think it's more that Anubis is getting in the way of accessing the content, and blocking actual humans. It quickly becomes "it's that damn anime girl again" and I suspect the mascot only increases the irritation in the same way that cutesy error messages do when you're trying to do serious work.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32337520
by summarity | 2025-08-17 21:45:41+00:00
I’m also an avid Nim developer (findsight.ai is almost pure Nim).

I recently compiled some stats on Nims popularity on GitHub: https://code.tc/nim-stats-august-2025/

It’s growing steadily but I do qualitatively feel like the ecosystem has lost a bit of steam over the past year. Excited for the ongoing Nim tool chain work though.
by ThatPlayer | 2025-08-17 21:45:48+00:00
> Player moves, is it valid?

The problem isn't whether or not it's valid. It is whether or not it is a human doing it, or an aimbot. This isn't unique to games, websites/browsers do the same thing: scraper and other bots all give valid inputs, but not always human ones. That's why captchas exist, and those only detect "only-bots", not a bot assisted by a human or vice-versa.

> Ray cast reached target and does damage. Was that valid?

This one is very hard to replicate because of latency. By the time I see and shoot at an opponent at position A, on the server the opponent will be at position B. And on the opponent's computer, position C. In the time it takes for my packet to reach the server, the opponent is now at position D.

So my "shoot gun" network message not only has to include my current timestamp, but also my current position of the opponent. Because of latency, my opponent's position on my client wouldn't even be the last packet I got (A-1), but rather A-1 interpolated based on how long it took for the packet to reach my client. You have to trust the client on what it thinks is a valid position for the opponent, because no one wants to play a game where you can't hit the opponent. This leeway gives you a lot of room to fudge inputs.

These differing game states also leads to peaker's advantage in games.
by YeGoblynQueenne | 2025-08-17 21:45:51+00:00
And yet, observational data suggests that driving a huge car makes it harder for you to get injured an easier for everyone else. For example:

"First off, the vitriol against large vehicles is misplaced. The larger the vehicle, the safer for its occupants".

https://youtu.be/YpuX-5E7xoU?si=mNyPrDr1hUGF_AGy&t=56

"American roads are deadliest than ever for pedestrians, cyclists, and, most of all, motorcyclists".

https://youtu.be/YpuX-5E7xoU?si=BGaDhmefTKCr8cAL&t=96
by saurik | 2025-08-17 21:45:53+00:00
I mean, to be fair, you didn't ask it to be interesting ;P.

There once was a dog from Antares, Whose bark sparked debates and long queries. Though Hacker News rated, Furyofantares stated: "It's barely intriguing—just barely."

> Write a limerick about a dog that furyofantares--a user on Hacker News, pronounced "fury of anteres", referring to the star--would find "interesting" (they are quite difficult to please).
by kylecazar | 2025-08-17 21:46:26+00:00
I didn't mention it in my original comment, but I enjoyed your article -- and agree that small, personal, purpose-built tools are having a moment in the age of LLM's. I like that application of AI.

In a way (as I understood it), what you're getting at is that not everything has to be a business. Businesses definitely do have to scale, but personal software doesn't.
by hopelite | 2025-08-17 21:47:48+00:00
That does seem relatively presumptuous of the "scientists". Maybe "humanoid" would be more appropriate, especially considering that it does not seem to demonstrate any effort to accurately represent the human face. It could very well represent some sort of spirit or "demon".

It also could very well not have been a mask humans would have worn, but instead it could have been part of some other thing like a statue or maybe an effigy that was burned, i.e., the "mask" could have been added to a straw or wood statue/figure that was then burned; saving the "mask" for next season/time.

It could have also very well just have been a kind of thing you would use to deter intruders by having or placing it somewhere.

A mask presumes that a human would wear it or it emulates such a purpose. It does not even need to be that. Think of old porcelain dolls whose face was porcelain but the rest of the head was stuffed fabric. That would also explain the holes on its perimeter. That kind of thing is also still done in certain places during various pagan celebrations that have survive and are so old no one knows how old they are, probably handed down and evolved from even before the time of this "mask's" creation.
by MathMonkeyMan | 2025-08-17 21:48:20+00:00
The last time I was looking for a job, I wrote a little scraper that used naive regex to classify "HN Who's Hiring" postings as "AI," "full time," etc.

I was looking for a full time remote or hybrid non-AI job in New York. I'm not against working on AI, but this being a startup forum I felt like listings were dominated by shiny new thing startups, whereas I was looking for a more "boring" job.

Anyway, here's:

- a graph: https://home.davidgoffredo.com/hn-whos-hiring-stats.html

- the filtered listings: https://home.davidgoffredo.com/hn-whos-hiring.html

- the code: https://github.com/dgoffredo/hn-whos-hiring