MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by danudey | 2025-08-12 23:27:55+00:00
I've gotten used to golang, though it's still not my favourite language to program in by any stretch. One issue I've been having, though, is the documentation.

Documentation for third-party modules in Python is fantastic, almost universally so. In nearly every case of using a third-party library, large or small, there's sufficient documentation to get up and running.

Golang libraries, however, seem to be the opposite. In most cases there's either no documentation whatsoever on how to use things, or, more commonly, there is example code in the readme which is out of date and does not work at all.

The IDE integration with golang is great, and it makes some of this a bit easier, but I also still get a ton of situations where my editor will offer some field or function that looks like what I want (and is what I'm typing to see if it will autocomplete) but once I select it it complains that there's no such field or function. Still haven't figured that out.

So yeah, I dunno. The language is 'great'; it certainly has some extreme strengths and conveniences, like the fact that 'run this function with these arguments in a separate thread' is a language keyword and not some deep dive into subprocess or threading or concurrent.futures; the fact that synchronization functionality is trivially easy to access; Sync.Once feels so extremely obvious for a language where concurrency is king, and so on.

Still, the ecosystem is... a bit of a mess, at the best of times. Good modules are great, all other modules are awful.
by dghlsakjg | 2025-08-12 23:28:57+00:00
There is not a shortage of labor in general. There is possibly a shortage of specialized labor (although arguably not in high skilled and technical positions like the H1B intends/typically aims to fill).

Again, people study this and have a name for it: structural unemployment. This is the unemployment level caused by employers needing to hire for skills that the market cannot currently provide. Think of the town with high unemployment due to a car factory closure, but a local business that needs scuba diving instructors can't find one. Plenty of labor, but no scuba diving instructors.

I think this is what you are getting at: If you want to hire someone foreign because the skills don't exist in the local labor market, you should be obligated to prove that the skill is being developed in the local labor market.

The argument (not mine, just an argument) against that is that individual firms should not necessarily be forced to bear the cost of training workers in a portable skill when you can just bring in non-local labor (H1B). Back to the Scuba shop example: it costs 5 figures and 6+ months to train a non-diver to the level of scuba instructor. It is good for the labor pool to force the shop to train a new instructor, even if they have to pay a massive cost for them to get certified, and the labor can quit the day they get certified. It is bad for consumers and the shop. They would much rather pay lower prices and bring in a foreign instructor than run short handed for months while they plow money into training someone in a skill that the worker can take to their competition.

My feeling is that H1Bs are probably useful in much more limited circumstances than they are used in now (probably something more like O-1 visas that are given for people who are leaders in their fields, or demonstrably and uniquely talented). If the H1B job can be done interchangeably, then it should be done by domestic labor. If you want to hire the one guy who just won a nobel prize to work on your time machine, that is when we should allow foreign labor.
by terminalshort | 2025-08-12 23:29:08+00:00
It's not there to short circuit reasoning. It's there to short circuit self interested reasoning, which is both necessary for social cohesion and a vector of attack. The farther you are from a person the more likely it is to be the latter. You must have seen it a thousand times where someone plays the victim to take advantage of another person's empathy, right?
by maxbond | 2025-08-12 23:29:35+00:00
I would say avoid trying to understand arcane nuances better than the adversary. Assume they've simultaneously got more time on their hands and sat on the relevant standards committees. Adopt a strategy that's robust to having missed a small nuance in the standard or in the particular implementation by this or that browser. (That doesn't mean there isn't value in a blog post enumerating the edge cases, of course.)

Kaminsky described a very simple and nearly-universal technique to deal with escaping/injection issues. Encode the embedded data as base64 and decode it on the client side. This projects arbitrary data into a fixed, known domain (generally `[a-zA-Z0-9+/]*`) which you can ensure is free from control characters. (You may need to use a particular variant to achieve this, eg for URLs the last characters used are generally `-_` because both + and / are significant in that context.)

After decoding, you can pass it to JSON.parse().
by bcrosby95 | 2025-08-12 23:29:52+00:00
Earning $1mil and stuffing 100% of it into the stock market is a risky move.

You lay out basically the situation I found myself in. But I set aside some for a future house down payment (less risk for that chunk), future wedding (less risk for that chunk), and even ignoring that, most advice wouldn't say to stuff the remaining 100% into markets.

So maybe 60% went into markets. With hindsight it oftentimes sounds like a good idea to just drop it all in the market. But life is uncertain and crystal balls are in short supply... you would feel stupid if you made $1mil, put it all in stocks, and life came out of nowhere and took a dump all over you when the markets tanked.

Not saying I'm in a bad position, but its nowhere near "1mil at 10% per year (which is in itself kinda a wild base assumption)".

TLDR: people have a rosy unrealistic view of how this works out.
by AndreLock | 2025-08-12 23:30:55+00:00
Using valuation as a measuring stick is a bit silly given how much valuations can be inflated based on a pre-revenue idea and the pedigree of the company founder(s). When Mira Murati and Ilya Sutskever left OpenAI and walked into a room of investors saying, "I'm starting my own AI company", they arguably both created one-person, billion dollar companies right then and there.
by JonChesterfield | 2025-08-12 23:31:15+00:00
My grievance isn't with aliasing or dataflow, it's with a pointer provenance model which makes assumptions which are inconsistent with reality, optimises based on it, then justifies the nonsense that results with UB.

When the hardware behaviour and the pointer provenance model disagree, one should change the model, not change the behavior of the program.
by NomDePlum | 2025-08-12 23:31:57+00:00
Can you give an example?

The reality is that the statistics Hamas provides and Israeli propaganda constantly seek to question are widely acknowledged as reliable by almost everyone, including ironically Israel at certain points.

Israel can't even admit that they deliberately kill civilians even though it's happened 10's of thousands of times, possibly 100's of thousands.

This false equivalence has to stop. That no one mentions the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped and subjugated to systemic inhumane government sanctioned treatment by Israel is testament to how far truth is perverted.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-08-12 23:32:50+00:00
You don't need scientific evidence for everything. These are logical and self evident conclusions. In fact your own conclusion that declining population is good isn't even evidence based. You derived it from common sense, but the missing part is the nuance.

Either way Japan, China and Korea are all in panic mode right now. This is not some speculative issue I'm making up. It's deadly real and there is tons of evidence. Look it up. You're mostly treating it like it is because you're not as informed about the issue.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-population-decline-60-min...

half of the men in japan are virgins. Entire towns are about to disappear.
by drdeca | 2025-08-12 23:33:02+00:00
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems aren’t particularly relevant here. Given how often people attempt to apply them to situations where they don’t say anything of note, I think the default should generally be to not publicly appeal to them unless one either has worked out semi-carefully how to derive the thing one wants to show from them, or at least have a sketch that one is confident, from prior experience working with it, that one could make into a rigorous argument. Absent these, the most one should say, I think, is “Perhaps one can use Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to show [thing one wants to show].” .

Now, given a program that is supposed to output text that encodes true statements (in some language), one can probably define some sort of inference system that corresponds to the program such that the inference system is considered to “prove” any sentence that the program outputs (and maybe also some others based on some logical principles, to ensure that the inference system satisfies some good properties), and upon defining this, one could (assuming the language allows making the right kinds of statements about arithmetic) show that this inference system is, by Gödel’s theorems, either inconsistent or incomplete.

This wouldn’t mean that the language was unable to express those statements. It would mean that the program either wouldn’t output those statements, or that the system constructed from the program was inconsistent (and, depending on how the inference system is obtained from the program, the inference system being inconsistent would likely imply that the program sometimes outputs false or contradictory statements).

But, this has basically nothing to do with the “placeholders” thing you said. Gödel’s theorem doesn’t say that some propositions are inexpressible in a given language, but that some propositions can’t be proven in certain axiom+inference systems.

Rather than the incompleteness theorems, the “undefinability of truth” result seems more relevant to the kind of point I think you are trying to make.

Still, I don’t think it will show what you want it to, even if the thing you are trying to show is true. Like, perhaps it is impossible to capture qualia with language, sure, makes sense. But logic cannot show that there are things which language cannot in any way (even collectively) refer to, because to show that there is a thing it has to refer to it.

————

“Can you write a test suite for it?”

Hm, might depend on what you count as a “suite”, but a test protocol, sure. The one I have in mind would probably be a bit expensive to run if it fails the test though (because it involves offering prize money).
by homebrewer | 2025-08-12 23:33:41+00:00
Previously:

> March 7, 2024: Committing to Windows

https://world.hey.com/dhh/committing-to-windows-2d6388fd

> June 6, 2024: Introducing Omakub (based on Ubuntu)

https://world.hey.com/dhh/introducing-omakub-354db366

Place your bets on what is next: nixOS? Haiku? OpenBSD?
by alephnerd | 2025-08-12 23:34:29+00:00
> I know so many US citizens who have 10+ years of work experience and work in modern stacks that have been out of a job for 6+ months

The tech industry like tech stack is broad.

For example, it's nigh impossible to hire an American citizen with professional CUDA or eBPF experience because almost anyone with those skills already has a job. If you have those skills YOU WILL land a job (not remote first though - that era's over).

And it's not like you can retrain a fullstack engineer to understand systems programming overnight - it takes years of experience and knowledge of computer and OS architecture.

And it's not like companies aren't paying top dollar for these skills - they are, but people with those skills simply don't exist in significant numbers in the US.

There's a reason a large portion of the cybersecurity industry shifted to Israel and India - the kinds of table stakes skills in systems development aren't heavily taught in the US anymore compared to 15 years ago, and the only universities where you might have a shot hiring someone with those skills are T10 programs where students can field multiple job offers.

That said, the proposed changes in the H1B program are good - it's easier for a startup or a professional company to sponsor an H1B now instead of dealing with unethical consultancies gumming up the works.

The H1B market is bimodal - you have a huge chunk at consultancies who are paid low even by Indian standards and then an equally large chunk of people who are actually pretty elite and successful in India and are working at FAANG or top startups. You want to optimize for the right hand but don't want to make it so hard that you don't end up incentivizing talented people from leaving and returning to India or China or Europe.

That said, I don't envision this having much impact on easing hiring - AI/ML in the hands of experienced devs is fairly powerful AND the economic conditions currently are incentivizing us to limit hiring to only those who are truly critical.
by cigarette66 | 2025-08-12 23:34:47+00:00
Apart from the technical implementation I'm surprised the writeup didn't catch the flaws in such a setup.

The notifyer has no obligation to actually notify correctly. They can spam some advertising site or malicious site.

The notifee (?) has no way of checking that the notifyer has fulfilled their promise.

For example I could say 'let me know' when an update on the new cheese factory happens. Then the wait is too long so the notifyer does a 'semi fulfillment' of the promise. The notifee clicks, is disappointed and has nothing more to vote with since they never had something like a subscription in the first place.
by zenoprax | 2025-08-12 23:35:28+00:00
> After spending extra time researching it I found out there was a technical term for it and when I brought that up Claude finally admitted defeat. It was being a persistent little fucker before then.

Whenever I feel like I need to write "Why aren't you listening to me?!" I know it's time for a walk and a change in strategy. It's also a good indicator that I'm changing too much at once and that my requirements are too poorly defined.
by davorak | 2025-08-12 23:35:40+00:00
> not necessarily the emotional mirroring aspect he's defined empathy to be.

The way the wikipedia article describes Bloom's definition is less generous than what you have here

> For Bloom, "[e]mpathy is the act of coming to experience the world as you think someone else does"[1]: 16

So for bloom it is not necessarily even accurately mirroring another's emotions, but only what you think there emotions are.

> Bloom also explores the neurological differences between feeling and understanding, which are central to demonstrating the limitations of empathy.

This seems to artificial separate empathy and understanding in a way that does not align with common usage and I would argue also makes for a less useful definition in that I would then need new words to describe what I currently use 'empathy' for.
by arkmm | 2025-08-12 23:36:13+00:00
"There was one surprise when I revisited costs: OpenAI charges an unusually low $0.0001 / 1M tokens for batch inference on their latest embedding model. Even conservatively assuming I had 1 billion crawled pages, each with 1K tokens (abnormally long), it would only cost $100 to generate embeddings for all of them. By comparison, running my own inference, even with cheap Runpod spot GPUs, would cost on the order of 100× more expensive, to say nothing of other APIs."

I wonder if OpenAI uses this as a honeypot to get domain-specific source data into its training corpus that it might otherwise not have access to.
by username332211 | 2025-08-12 23:37:43+00:00
No. The fact that they were wrong is almost irrelevant.

The faculty denounced the students without evidence, judged the case thought their emotions and their preconceived notions and refused to change their minds as new evidence emerged. Imagine having an academic discussion on a difficult ethical issue with such a teacher...

And none of that would have changed even, even if there somehow was a rape-focused conspiracy among the students of that university. (Thought the problem would have been significantly less obvious.)
by cowmix | 2025-08-12 23:37:47+00:00
MSFT simply has done half-assed attempts at ARM for each wave / attempt over the past 10+ years. APPL, for each processor move, "bet the company" and it was full speed ahead whereas MSFT has never HAD to align everything for a move.

Having said all that, I've been using a Snapdragon Elite X laptop since day one and the experience has gotten better over the year plus I've been using it. Once there was a native port of command line git (yes, THAT didn't even work) - my life got a lot better.
by drdeca | 2025-08-12 23:38:20+00:00
When I have a physical experience, sometimes it results in me saying a word.

Now, maybe there are other possible experiences that would result in me behaving identically, such that from my behavior (including what words I say) it is impossible to distinguish between different potential experiences I could have had.

But, “caused me to say” is a relation, is it not?

Unless you want to say that it wasn’t the experience that caused me to do something, but some physical thing that went along with the experience, either causing or co-occurring with the experience, and also causing me to say the word I said. But, that would still be a relation, I think.
by jononor | 2025-08-12 23:38:42+00:00
GPU compute per dollar has been on a pretty steady curve of around 10x per decade. In ML for computer vision we were also able to make models around 10x as efficient per 10 years. I think with these two factors combined, mapped to LLMs, we will be able go match the performance of say Sonnet 4 on a 2000 USD workstation well within 10 years from today.
by JonChesterfield | 2025-08-12 23:39:07+00:00
It's an interesting question.

Say you're working with assembly as your medium, on a von neumann machine. Writing to parts of the code section is expected behaviour. What can you optimise in such a world? Whatever cannot be observed. Which might mean replacing instructions with sequences of the same length, or it might mean you can't work out anything at all.

C is much more restricted. The "function code" isn't there, forging pointers to the middle of a function is not a thing, nor is writing to one to change the function. Thus the dataflow is much easier, be a little careful with addresses of starts of functions and you're good.

Likewise the stack pointer is hidden - you can't index into the caller's frame - so the compiler is free to choose where to put things. You can't even index into your own frame so any variable whose address is not taken can go into a register with no further thought.

That's the point of higher level languages, broadly. You rule out forms of introspection, which allows more stuff to change.

C++ has taken this too far with the object model in my opinion but the committee disagrees.
by jameshart | 2025-08-12 23:39:13+00:00
Or straight to an EB-1a greencard - the criteria are virtually identical. And if they’re that good, they should be able to insist on being sponsored for the greencard not the employment-based visa.

Although for China and India the priority date for EB1a is three years currently so if you’re from either of them O-1 will be a necessary stopgap, but for anyone else EB1a applications are open immediately.
by raphlinus | 2025-08-12 23:39:53+00:00
Along similar lines but physically much smaller, there are currently about 3 or 4 boards[1] that have RP2350, DVI, USB host, and SD card, ranging in cost from about $15 to $40.

A particular sweet spot is emulating 8 and 16 bit systems, as latency can be just as good as an FPGA setup. The infoNES emulator has been running on RP2040 for a while, and I see projects for Sega Master System, Genesis, Apple II, and Mac in the works. But you can also write much more powerful software natively.

Likely it will be possible to adapt software between these various RP2350 systems.

[1]: https://github.com/DusterTheFirst/pico-dvi-rs/wiki/RP2350-DV...
by SvenL | 2025-08-12 23:40:19+00:00
I think Fk constraints are still valid and a good thing to do.

Like you mentioned, you changed something and they pop up. You define that there is a necessary relationship between certain things and define it once in your schema. Your sql server takes care of enforcing it. You don’t need to remember every time about this relationship. So there is one thing less you need to take care of/which can cause issues.
by kstrauser | 2025-08-12 23:40:33+00:00
OTOH, I have zero interest in contributing to a C kernel. Even the experts can't write it without messing up with C's vastly many footguns. I'm not a C expert. What chance to I have to add a new kernel feature that doesn't literally destroy my system? It's too intimidating in the sheer amount of risky "surface area" I have to perfectly manage or else face dire consequences.

Nah. I'd much rather use a newer language that's explicitly designed for writing the same sorts of things that C is but with a teensy portion of the footguns.

I'm not saying C is bad. I am saying that if the Linux kernel devs still write buggy code sometimes — not because of logic errors or other design-level mistakes, but because of some goofy memory issue or accidentally wandering off into the wilderness of UB — then I guarantee I'm going to screw it up.

If it were in Rust or Zig or whatever, I'd feel like I had at least a fighting chance of making a tweak that didn't immediately format my hard drive and kick my cat.
by ww520 | 2025-08-12 23:41:36+00:00
Mad respect. This is an incredible project to pull together all these technologies. The crown jewel of a search engine is its ranking algorithm. I'm not sure how LLM is being used in this regard in here.

One effective old technique for ranking is to capture the search-to-click relationship by real users. It's basically the training data by human mapping the search terms they entered to the links they clicked. With just a few of clicks, the ranking relevance goes way up.

May be feeding the data into a neural net would help ranking. It becomes a classification problem - given these terms, which links have higher probabilities being clicked. More people clicking on a link for a term would strengthening the weights.
by starchild3001 | 2025-08-12 23:41:58+00:00
The reality is that cloud and AI model serving has become a race to the bottom. Top models are increasingly similar in capabilities, so price, not features, has become the main differentiator.

OpenAI’s key move was to put its thinking capability behind a router, making it automatic and optional. This allows the system to use more expensive reasoning only when needed, reducing average serving costs.

They're clearly doing the right thing -- the router approach, in principle, will lower their costs while maintaining roughly the same quality.

Of all things, this benefits OpenAI's bottomline. It isn't necessarily an attack on Antropic or Google Gemini.

It's just inference costs slowly becoming "too cheap to meter", while user experience vastly improving thanks to reduced latency for easier-to-answer prompts.

It's a win for OpenAI (lower cost). It's a win for chatgpt users (lower latency and better model for the free tier). And stronger competition for anyone else, which eventually benefits everyone.

FYI, you can get a glimpse of the current AI-model market share here: https://openrouter.ai/rankings?view=week
by kube-system | 2025-08-12 23:42:42+00:00
> If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?

We’re talking about it because you brought it up, but it generally does not apply to data privacy in the US.

Courts recognize that peeping toms can’t look into your window, but ad tech absolutely can track data about you, in your car, or even your home.