MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dude250711 | 2025-08-07 10:56:27+00:00
It could have been better if the entire codebase could always be provided to AI as the context. Otherwise, specifying exactly what you want is one step away from just doing it yourself.

> As a manager, AI is really nice to get a summary of how everything is going at the company and what tasks everyone is working on and the status of the tasks, instead of having refinement meetings to get status updates on tasks.

I do not understand why they are not marketing some "GPT Middle Manager" to the executive boards so that they could cut that fat. Surely that is a huge untapped cost-cutting potential?
by diggan | 2025-08-07 10:56:31+00:00
> I think cloud-based async agents like Codex and Jules are superior to the Claude Code/Aider/Cursor style of local integration

Ideally, a combination of both I feel like would be a productive setup. I prefer the UI of Codex where I can hand-off boring stuff while I work on other things, because the machines they run Codex on is just too damn slow, compiling Rust takes forever and it needs to continuously refetch/recompile dependencies instead of leveraging caching, compared to my local machine.

If I could have a UI + tools + state locally while the LLM inference is the only remote point, the whole workflow would end up so much faster.
by rwmj | 2025-08-07 10:57:01+00:00
Who would write a web server? Who would write Curl? Who would write a whole operating system to compete with Microsoft when that would take thousands of engineers being paid $100,000s per year? People don't understand that these companies have huge R&D budgets!

(The answer is that most of the work would be done by companies who have an interest in video distribution - eg. Google - but don't profit directly by selling codecs. And universities for the more research side of things. Plus volunteers gluing it all together into the final system.)
by burnt-resistor | 2025-08-07 10:57:42+00:00
Sigh. (Take away pg's weed for today.) That's 100-200 defects/day and unknown vulnerabilities. Building one's own coffin by voluminous tech debt to be repaid later with interest. It's wiser to reuse what already exists and reduce kLoC for maximum delivered utility. And it's also an absolutely dubious claim to assert because there's absolutely no evidence... it's purely a vague, testimonial vibe. (Sorry, pg.)
by johncolanduoni | 2025-08-07 10:58:38+00:00
Why would BigTech care about the dozens of users using an open source password manager? What’s their gain from preventing these people from logging in? They love money and don’t care about user freedom, sure. But they’ve shown no evidence of hating user freedom on principle.

Every time I’ve seen them actually attack user freedom, there was an embarrassingly obvious business angle. Like Chrome’s browser attestation that was definitely not to prevent Adblock, no sir.
by account42 | 2025-08-07 10:58:41+00:00
> I am not certain I believe it is very likely, because (a) I think "sign-in partner" is obvious bullshit

It's looks almost the same as the log-in-with-big-tech flow that users are already used to.

> and (b) I don't understand why I would never enter a code into the wrong website. I believe it can be possible, but...

You enter it on the website you are trying to log into and where you initiated the action, which in this scenario is the BAD website.
by aanthonymax | 2025-08-07 10:58:49+00:00
import hmpl from "hmpl-js";

const templateFn = hmpl.compile( `<div> <button data-action="increment" id="btn">Click!</button> <div>Clicks: {{#request src="/api/clicks" after="click:#btn"}}{{/request}}</div> </div>` );

const controller = new AbortController(); const clicker = templateFn(({ request: { event } }) => ({ body: JSON.stringify({ action: event.target.getAttribute("data-action") }), signal: controller.signal, })).response;

document.querySelector("#app").append(clicker);
We built ChatOps inside WhatsApp for Indian ops teams
by prkothan | 2025-08-07 10:59:32+00:00
We noticed Indian ops teams — hospitals, service teams, facility managers — all run on WhatsApp. Not email. Not Slack. Just endless chat groups and Excel sheets.

But WhatsApp wasn’t built for work. So we built “ChatOps for WhatsApp” — a layer that turns chats into tickets, tasks, and workflows, all from within WhatsApp. No logins, no portals, no app-switching.

It integrates with backend tools (CRM, ERP, HRMS), handles SLAs, and helps ops leaders finally track what’s going on — without changing how their teams work.

Built for India. Might be useful in other WhatsApp-heavy markets too.

Would love your thoughts:

Do you see similar patterns in other countries?

What are the risks in building on top of WhatsApp infra?
by criley2 | 2025-08-07 10:59:36+00:00
Curious to try this against the Github (website) Agent. The website Agent is definitely dumber than the vscode agent (because it has to spend 20 minutes figuring out how to build and start my monorepo apps) but on the flip side, it doesn't take up my computer and thus any value it creates is additive.

We have tried out Gemini code review vs Copilot code review and Gemini is consistently offering better code review tips. It has officially caught multiple potential bugs, even a few that reviewers might have missed, so it's definitely been additive.

Observability looks way worse. Github Agent has a full UX built into the Github PR that lets you dig into the agent behavior. This requires you to egress text logs and make sense of it yourself.

Also curious about customization. Github just rolled out "agent writes its own instructions" https://github.blog/changelog/2025-08-06-copilot-coding-agen... which is super cool, how do I customize this one and teach it how to start and manage apps across my monorepo?
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-08-07 10:59:52+00:00
> If used Wolfram Alpha right for reasonable comparison that is largest cruise ship with mass of 248663000 kg to speed up to 0.01c mentioned the kinetic energy would be 2.9 times the worlds fossil fuel reserves

This math is wrong.

Back of the envelope: accelerating 250 x 10^6 kg to 1% of c over one year is about 310,000 TWh. That’s like half of current annual energy production.

Even at like 10g, which would accelerate that mass to 1% c in less than half a day, you’d only use like a tenth of our 10^22 joules of fossil fuel reserves.

> double that to slow down

Why the asymmetry? 1x to accelerate, 1x to decelerate. (Less if you can aerobrake and/or use gravity assists.)

Taking the 310k TWh from earlier and doubling it, and assuming 18 MeV for D-T direct-drive fusion, and you need 6,600 kg fuel for the journey. (Plus propellant.) 100x that to account for inefficiency and cooling and you have 660 metric tonnes of hydrogen. That, if kept in its bastard liquid form, takes up about 3 Olympic-size swimming pools in volume.
by random_is_rando | 2025-08-07 11:00:12+00:00
No, they'd have to print the whole human that's encoded as data. Provided the process is fast enough, and the tech is available, it should be way faster than growing a full human from cells.

There's also no point in talking what can be done today, since such a project would take quite a while, both to assemble and get anywhere close to destination. Just because we cannot do it today doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered as a possible approach since we might get there in 30-50 years, which is nothing for the scales of time we're talking about.

Cryo tech is quite primitive, you are fighting to maintain a structure instead of saving its data and rebuilding it later when tech allows. Imagine 3D printing a benchy and freezing it so it stays "fresh" for 50 years (for some potential use at that time), instead of saving the benchy stl file and printing it in 50 years.

Plans for potential human expansion into our galaxy must include potential tech developments, can't block it to the tech that is available today. The way things are going there's no reason to discard full scan and reassemble of a full human being, in some future. Let alone moving consciousness on other type of more resilient hardware.
by thecupisblue | 2025-08-07 11:00:35+00:00
Wait, is this CLI or is this a github action or is this a github application?

Also, I thought Jules was the "coding agent" they are working on. Now this is taking it over or is this like another case of Google self-competing?

Someone needs to take charge at this company with a strong vision, because they are all over the place and spreading themselves thin, which in turn spreads thin the customer/brand equity.

At this point, as someone who: - Has been writing Android code for about 13 years now

- Has collaborated with Google on stuff

- Lead Google developer communities and conferences

- Knows many, many GDE's and has discussions with them often

- Uses Gemini API for their product

I'm so damn confused. How is a normal customer expected to understand then?

- They have 2 SDK's for communicating to their Gemini API.

- The documentation is spread and thrown all over the place.

- Half the time I'm trying to do something I have to dig through their code to find how to.

- The features I really want are rate limited or available only to private testers.

- They have 3 coding agents now.

- Even thought they have access to my Google Account and my phone, their Gemini app is useless.

- I tried to do a basic thing (add a service account) in Google Cloud recently, which wasn't allowed due to default rules that are deprecated and are so confusing to change due to their confusing UX.

The only usable thing is the AI studio, which is a great tool for experimenting with diff models and improved the DX of getting a Gemini API key by a mile.

I'd say congrats on the release, but honestly this is such a mid low hanging fruit of a product.
by Tor3 | 2025-08-07 11:00:46+00:00
"there are an enormous number of loan words (mostly from English)."

Actually, no. Most of the loan words are from Chinese, if you look at the full vocabulary of Japanese. Old Chinese. It's a huge part of the Japanese vocabulary. Then you have a lot of loan words (from later times) from Portuguese, Dutch, and even German. And English. But even words like the word for beer (ビール), which sounds something like "beer-oo" isn't from English. It's from Dutch "bier".

In any case, the modern loan words are nearly always written in katakana, while loan words from traditional Chinese aren't. You don't see them as easily, while you can quickly spot modern loan words and there aren't _that_ many. Even though new loan words tend to come more from English nowadays.
by dspillett | 2025-08-07 11:01:38+00:00
> Wouldn't that be incredibly insecure?

If done naively with a simple magic link, yes.

> and if the user happens to click the link they've just given the attacker access to their account

Worse: if the user's UA “clicks the link” by making the GET request to generate a preview. The user might not even have opened the message for this to happen.

> Wouldn't that be incredibly insecure?

It can be mitigated somewhat by making the magic link go to a page that invites the user to click something that sends a post request. In theory the preview loophole might come into play here if the UA tries to be really clever, but I doubt this will happen.

Another option is to give the user the option to transfer the session to the originating UA, or stay where they are, if you detect that a different UA is used to open the magic link, but you'd have to be carful wording this so as to not confuse many users.
by Yizahi | 2025-08-07 11:02:10+00:00
Single LLM company can't stop investing into better systems and marketing of them, because there is no moat and customers will flee to the ones who do invest. It's free after all. So it is a closed loop which can't be broken, companies can but won't switch to "just inference". And with investing, all of the LLM companies are losing money a lot (on the LLMs specifically).
by ankitg12 | 2025-08-07 11:02:13+00:00
Seems like posted 6 days back as well - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44754457.

I don't see any font images itself in the repo but some glyph files which seem to be defining the fonts- https://github.com/googlefonts/googlesans-code/blob/main/sou... . Any one has more references to how this works? How can you define a font with code - do you give which pixel would be filled in a box or something else. And this has tests as well.

Fonts-As-Code !!
by esjeon | 2025-08-07 11:02:48+00:00
The actual weak link here is not the procedure itself. It’s the fact that your email services will happily accept phishing mails into your inbox.

I’m pretty sure we can prevent this by issuing some kind of proof of agreement (with sender and recipient info) thru email services. Joining a service becomes submitting a proof to the service, and any attempt to contact the user from the service side must be sealed with the proof. Mix in some signing and HMAC this should be doable. I mean, IF we really want to extend the email standard.
by miclys | 2025-08-07 11:03:27+00:00
Google DeepMind has announced Genie 3, a revolutionary AI system capable of generating interactive, physically consistent virtual worlds from simple text prompts. This marks a substantial leap in the field of world models—a class of AI designed to understand and simulate environments, not merely render them, but produce dynamic spaces you can move through and interact with like a game engine in real-time.
by rightbyte | 2025-08-07 11:05:32+00:00
"He and Newmark are neither, he wrote, but rather the kind of capitalists who are not fully focused on maximizing profit.

That ethos defined the company. Newmark and Buckmaster rebuffed ideas for expansion — like adding user reviews — because it would make Craigslist easier to game and harder to moderate."

Ye. The right call. User reviews worked great for some years until the KPI became the target.
by disgruntledphd2 | 2025-08-07 11:05:39+00:00
> Most engineers also knew how to scaffold a SaaS with Rails, Django or Next.js, Stripe etc. without writing much code.

Most web engineers do, certainly. But I work in data, so I didn't. And for me, LLM based tools have made it much, much easier to build relatively simple frontends for my data stuff that make my life a lot easier.

I'm partial to the notion that LLMs don't really raise the ceiling, rather they raise the floor by making web n00bs like me more effective at shipping stuff that can be used by others.

To be fair though, I'm much handier at Django now than I used to be, and am slowly learning JS/browser stuff as a result of these projects.
by so-cal-schemer | 2025-08-07 11:06:04+00:00
It's interesting that you would name Cisco. They hired Kent Dybvig and acquired Cadence Research Center in 2011 for Chez Scheme[0] — possibly for use in processing IOS configs, testing, and network management. It seems like Chez was the most performant scheme in the day[1] and was proprietary, expensive, and possibly not available to individuals.[2]

There were a number of good free schemes[3], and Chez was open-sourced in 2016, but I wonder how much of Perl, Ruby, and Python's popularity derived from their open licenses.

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20241107091603/http://community....

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180917033028/https://ecraven.g...

[2]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/faqs/lang/scheme/part2/...

[3]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/faqs/lang/scheme/part2/...
by ben_w | 2025-08-07 11:06:17+00:00
The reason Trek has it is likely a common misunderstanding of QM: it's not only that we cannot record both position and momentum, the information does not exist in the first place.

It's easier to see why if you think about Fourier transforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4&themeRefresh=1

TLDW: an infinitely long wave does not (cannot) have any definite location, but it does have a definite periodic wavelength; conversely, a single impulse noise (a shockwave from e.g. a bullet or an explosion) has a definite location (in the direction of motion and at any given point in time) but no meaningful wavelength.

The more you constrain the possibility space of one, the looser the other becomes in a physical sense, not just the information you have about it.
by flohofwoe | 2025-08-07 11:06:52+00:00
Shit like this is why I'm grateful for the worker rights that were paid for with blood in the more civilized parts of the world during the 19th and early 20th century. At least the US seems to be civilized enough that the CEO isn't immediately dragged out to the street to hang from the next traffic light - but maybe that's part of the problem ;)
by nerdsniper | 2025-08-07 11:07:24+00:00
There's R&D pushing both ends to higher performance - dailies and monthlies. Dailies reduce chance of infection vs. putting in the same contact over and over 30 days in a row, and provide the highest quality vision every day because the contact degrades over 30 days of use.

Meanwhile on the monthly side of things, contacts that are approved for "extended wear" have enough oxygen permeability to be worn overnight now. Ten years ago, this was for up to 7-14 days (Biofinity), now they are up to 30 days (Air Optix Night & Day). This also greatly reduces the chance of infection (because you're not handling the contact 60 times per month) and is just super convenient because it's nice only having to touch your eye 12 times per year - you largely forget you're even shortsighted at all because you can see clearly from the moment you wake up till the moment you fall asleep every single day.

If anything, I'd argue that the monthly ones are the "scam" pricing, not the daily ones. They're priced just about the same per year, but the manufacturing costs must be significantly lower when you're only consuming 1/30th the number of units.

Regardless, the market appears to support ongoing R&D for both strategies.
by lowsong | 2025-08-07 11:07:40+00:00
> the future of software engineering will inevitably have more AI within it

Probably not. We're deep in the hype bubble, so AI is strongly overused. Once the bubble pops and things calm down, some use-cases may well emerge from the ashes but it'll be nowhere near as overused as it is now.

> AI has become a race between countries and companies, mostly due to status. The company that creates an AGI first will win and get the most status.

There's a built-in assumption here that AGI is not only possible but inevitable. We have absolutely no evidence that's the case, and the only people saying we're even remotely close are tech CEOs who's entire business model depends on people believing that AGI is around the corner.
by beala | 2025-08-07 11:08:18+00:00
Google's "AI Overview" feature is particularly bad.

o3 gives the following response:

> Short answer: it isn’t. Rum isn’t “healthy” any more than other booze.

It goes on to give a bulleted list on why it's not healthy. Full output: https://chatgpt.com/share/6894871f-be9c-800e-8cc9-9e5ec2d5d6...

A sibling comment speculated that Google's response is expected because it's just a summary of bad search results. To test this, I ran a fresh query against o3 with the Web Search option enabled. The results:

> Rum is a tasty way to get ethanol into your body, but it is not a health food. Any modest upsides you may have read about (a bump in “good” HDL cholesterol, slight blood-thinning, a bit of antioxidant pickup from barrel aging) are the same things you’d get from any spirit, and recent large studies show those benefits are either tiny or disappear once you control for lifestyle. Meanwhile the well-documented downsides—cancer risk, liver disease, high blood pressure, weight gain, addiction, injuries—kick in from the first drink.

It goes on to give an extensive debunking of all the nonsense health benefits in the Google summary. It looks like it saw the same search results but was able to course correct and view those results with a more skeptical eye. Full output: https://chatgpt.com/share/6894885d-51dc-800e-ab8c-55af0a5bb2...

This post is about Google, so it's fair to focus on their search product, but I'd be careful to generalize to other LLMs. There are huge differences in quality between different models.
by strogonoff | 2025-08-07 11:09:12+00:00
For a while I have been curious about the intended uses for xAtTime functions (like cancelAndHoldAtTime) in Web Audio. As far as I understand it, calls to them suffer from lag due to main JavaScript thread and audio thread communication, which makes sample precision unachievable—and precision is quite important in music.

Is it mostly for emulating slow-moving changes on fixed timelines, a la automation tracks in traditional DAWs like Logic and Ableton? Is design rationale documented somewhere?
by CamouflagedKiwi | 2025-08-07 11:09:12+00:00
Not all of your examples are simply hubris (although there certainly was some of that).

> Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary

It effectively was necessary. They were drawn it via a pre-existing treaty with Belgium; it also does not seem like a good long-term plan for them to allow Germany to dominate the entire European mainland. The whole thing was a mess, but not because Britain was out of touch with the reality of the situation. They were very aware but felt they had no choice.

> The Treaty of Versailles was painfully myopic - all but ensuring WW2

It was, but that's a perspective that's very clear in hindsight, and at the time it arose more from ignorance of the consequences (and possibly some vindictiveness) than hubris.
by nerdsniper | 2025-08-07 11:09:59+00:00
> Permanent lenses had also led to some blood vessel overgrowth due to lack of oxygenation.

FWIW, this no longer appears to be the case. New "extended-wear" contacts have excellent oxygen permeability, and my ophthalmologist hasn't noticed any overgrowth of capillaries/vessels over the past 15 years of me wearing them. You can also sleep in them now, and I find them more comfortable than dailies actually, due to their high permeability.
by rco8786 | 2025-08-07 11:10:05+00:00
> We're deep in the hype bubble, so AI is strongly overused

I don't think these things are really that correlated. In fact, kind of the opposite. Hype is all talk, not actual usage.

I think this will turn out more like the internet itself. Wildly overhyped and underused when the dotcom bubble burst. But over the coming years and decades it grew steadily and healthily until it was everywhere.

Agreed re: AGI though.
by cipherboy | 2025-08-07 11:10:43+00:00
On behalf of the OpenBao project, I welcome collaboration with future researchers. We were not informed of these vulnerabilities before HashiCorp posted their usual CVE bulletins, which is disappointing. (Especially as HashiCorp's Vault no longer has an Open Source edition ;-)

We've triaged as being affected by 8 of the 9 CVEs (in fixing an earlier Cert Auth vulnerability, we correctly remediated this one) and have merged patches for most of them.

Happily, the community has done some great work on remediating these and I'm very appreciative of them.

I'm most excited about the audit changes: this was the impetus needed to make them be configuration driven in the next release series. Leaving audit device (which, as a reminder, have a socket mode which can make arbitrary TCP calls!) open to API callers is rather unsafe, even with prefix being limited.

(Edit: And of course it goes without saying, but we're more than happy to accept contributions to the community -- code, docs, technical, or otherwise!)