MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by solatic | 2025-08-17 18:10:35+00:00
> Then I heard word there are other empires. Some were run by tyrannical rulers with strange idiosyncrasies. I began to hear strange whispers, like the next empire over doesn't write any tests, and their only quality assurance process was an entire off-shore team manually clicking through the application. Or that an empire in a distant land has pyramids of software that touch the sky, crafted by thousands of people over decades.

Other empires besides the British (with plantations of manual QA) and the Egyptians (pyramids): the Mongols (ride in out of nowhere to bombard you with requirements and have ridden away before you figured out whether you actually need to deal with them or not), the Spanish (who insist that El Dorado isn't a fictious utopia of a project with full test coverage, full CI/CD, perfect monitoring, but will add every linter and bit of friction they can find to try to get there), the Japanese (who go to floors and campuses across the oceans to commit career suicide by yelling at random stakeholders that they have displeased The Emperor), the Chinese (their floors are always quiet, good luck finding your way through the Forbidden City of Zoom meetings without a map)...
by nialse | 2025-08-17 18:10:58+00:00
If the pattern generalizes to other tasks, maybe the test was right? ;)

Appreciate your post and the post you commented on. Taking shortcuts in test development often ends up being detrimental. There is also an inherent challenge in developing test for people who may well be smarter than you are. It’s like that programmer thing: “If you write the smartest program you can, and debugging is harder than writing code. Who’s gonna debug the code?” Many people have tried developing “smart” tests for cognitive abilities, some realize when they fail, some unfortunately don’t.
by sdairs | 2025-08-17 18:11:11+00:00
Without doubt, the majority of the market for OLAP today is still internal warehousing & BI. But the market for using OLAP behind features inside user-facing B2C/B2B apps has been kicking off for quite a few years now. Big consumer apps like Stripe, Uber, Shopify...pretty much every B2B SaaS with a usage/metrics dashboard...they're usually punting queries off to an OLAP to populate those stats/charts. That's where something like this might come in handy, I can't imagine it being using for general internal reporting (in the current form, anyway.)
by coffeefirst | 2025-08-17 18:12:18+00:00
Anyone who's interested in this should check out <https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/doctors-vs-ai-can-chat...>, where 3 professional therapists grade ChatGPT.

It's lengthy but it's fascinating.

Everyone can reach their own conclusions, but my read on this is LLMs continue to be incredible research tools. If you want to dive into what's been written about the brain, managing stress, tricky relationships, or the human experience generally, it will pull together all sorts of stuff for you that isn't bad.

I think we're we've gotten into serious trouble is the robot will play a role other than helpful researcher. I would have the machine operate like this:

> As a robot I can't give advice, but for people in situations similar to the one you've described, here's some of the ways they may approach it.

Then proceed exclusively in the third person, noting what's from trained professionals and what's from reddit as it goes. The substance may be the same, but it should be very clear that this is a guide to other documents, not a person talking to you.
by jorangreef | 2025-08-17 18:12:37+00:00
I don't mean to trap you, my anonymous friend :) but does the formal proof for Raft in Coq via Verdi not apply—at least in spirit—to the essential view change and SMR protocol for Viewstamped Replication? And, similarly, would you say that Viewstamped Replication's core view change and SMR protocol is really that different from Multi-Paxos as a superset—such that that proof also wouldn’t carry over?

I agree that proofs are sensitive to modeling choices. But the reason I ask is that the literature generally treats the core of these protocols (view change + SMR—reconfiguration aside for now) as essentially equivalent.

For example, I'm sure you're aware of Heidi Howard's work here, which unifies consensus under one framework, the main differences being election style (i.e. Raft does random, VSR does round-robin) and terminology, not fundamental mechanics. The upside being that optimizations and sub-protocols, such as reconfiguration, can then be shared across protocols.

To your point about reconfiguration, reconfiguration sub-protocols are a field in themselves, and here it’s common to mix and match. To be clear, I'm not aware of a proof for the reconfiguration sub-protocol in '12 VRR (and I've found a bug in its client crash recovery sub-protocol—with Dan Ports finding another in its recovery sub-protocol), but again, as Howard notes, since the SMR cores are equivalent, you can adopt a reconfiguration sub-protocol or session sub-protocol that has been proven—at least this is common practice in production systems.

I hope the spirit of the argument is clear. And trust that none of this changes the OP point: that VSR pioneered the field and that Raft (in the authors' own words) is "most notably" similar to Viewstamped Replication.

(Let's not get into the subject of actual implementation correctness, which is orders of magnitude harder than formal design proofs, or the fact that the formal proofs in question still lack for a storage fault model—for example, many Raft implementations violate the findings of “Protocol-Aware Recovery for Consensus-Based Storage”)
by matheist | 2025-08-17 18:12:51+00:00
Sorry to actually your actually, but the derivative of a function f from a space A to a space B at the point a is a linear function Df_a from the tangent space of A at a to the tangent space of B at b = f(a).

When the spaces are Euclidean spaces then we conflate the tangent space with the space itself because they're identical.

By the way, this makes it easy to remember the chain rule formula in 1 dimension. There's only one logical thing it could be between spaces of arbitrary dimensions m, n, p: composition of linear transformations from T_a A to T_f(a) B to T_g(f(a)) C. Now let m = n = p = 1, and composition of linear transformations just becomes multiplication.

(Only half kidding)
by Bender | 2025-08-17 18:13:34+00:00
Set up your own VPN. [1] Downside is that it has to be distributed to nodes you and your friends control and likely pay for. Tinc is also a bit slow. Upside is that it does user-space mesh routing and is very light weight and very network resilient, in that it can route around network issues. To make up for speed one can set up multiple http caches like Squid and configure them to do Squid SSL Bump (MitM cache). I've seen some people maintain docker images for Squid SSL Bump proxies. Just be careful who you decide to peer with as in, are they really friends you can trust. Just one idiot on your network can destroy it and cause legal issues for you.

[1] - https://www.tinc-vpn.org/
by matheusmoreira | 2025-08-17 18:13:36+00:00
We're citing and discussing the precise definitions of specific legal terms. Your counterargument is to point out the colloquial and out of context usage of words.

I already replied to the argument you cited. It's already been explained to you. Even the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.

If I really wanted to be pedantic, I would start claiming that it's all the english expressions you cited that are weird and make no sense at first glance.

I don't "take pleasure in something", I derive pleasure from something. The pleasure is obviously not contained in the object or activity. It's not even a real thing that can be taken. Pleasure is just the way my mind reacts when I engage with an object or in an activity I enjoy. A feeling spontaneously generated from something else.

I don't "take interest in something", I develop an interest in something. The subject did not contain the interest, it just spontaneously appeared in my mind after I considered the subject, leading me to want to know more.

The detail that makes these expressions work is the word "in". The places pleasure and interest are taken from are actually left unspecified. What this means is people "take" pleasure and interest from the intangible abstract world and place them in their minds over the course of engaging with an object or activity. I can definitely empathize with the thought process that produced these weird colloquial expressions.

But who am I to question the meaning of english words anyway? I'm not even a native. That's why I cite authorities such as the Supreme Court of the United States. They say copyright infringement is not strictly equivalent to theft. Courts have ruled that it's not even strictly equivalent to commercial loss. All that makes sense and I believe them.

This really should mark the end of this discussion.
by clove | 2025-08-17 18:13:41+00:00
You've made the mistake of thinking that if IQ were 50% genetic (it isn't - it's way more than that, but that's beside the point), then the remaining proportion is completely (non-shared) environmental.

Researchers in this field actually break down the non-genetic component into four major components: 1. Shared environment 2. Non-shared environment 3. Error

Shared environment accounts for so little variance that it might as well be ignored; while non-shared accounts for little more than error.

Note that including error in the non-genetic component, just as you've done in your post above, you are viscerally downplaying the otherwise undeniably predictive link from genes to IQ. In other words, whatever number you give is automatically deflated due to the way a psychometric is measured.

This has never been the source of debate. Back when I was going through grad school in intelligence, people didn't have to overthink how they presented the data. Intelligence was already a mature field, and we discussed the data openly. But in the past couple decades or so, a lot of people such as yourself popped up, attempting to craft irrelevant, statistically incorrect arguments against the results of certain well-established psychometrics that happen to not fit within whatever mental world your brand of politics ascribes.

If you really cared about the data, you'd be discussing the numbers. But your interest in this previously niche topic isn't in understanding reality; it's in justifying your worldview, which is why you deny the established data, immediately present a caveat stating that the data doesn't matter in the first place, appeal to emotions, and finish it all off by claiming those who disagree with you have been brainwashed. None of those four arguments have any merit in a genuine discussion on this topic.
by vunderba | 2025-08-17 18:14:35+00:00
Agree would feel far more comfortable if each Claudia project was a separate docker container that was spun up with the appropriate tooling (Node, Python, etc.) particularly with flags like `--dangerously-skip-permissions`.

There is an outstanding feature request around it at least:

https://github.com/getAsterisk/claudia/issues/8
by al_borland | 2025-08-17 18:14:44+00:00
I did this for a long time, but it doesn’t scale. At some point those other people actually need to do their jobs. I tried solving this by building tools and systems to make their jobs easier. This worked for some people, but others just need to be allowed to fail. No amount of help will be enough and bad situations end up being prolonged.

It is also very frustrating to watch people get promoted after taking or assuming credit for all the work you quietly do behind the scenes.
by judofyr | 2025-08-17 18:14:48+00:00
> Suggest contrary to that is wrongthink and enough to have one ostracized not only from science, but also society as a whole.

There's many scientists who have published the "contrary". They were not ostracized from science or from society as a whole. These saw next to none negative impact to their position while they were alive. Other scientists have published rebuttals and later some of the originals articles have been retracted.

J. Philippe Rushton: 250 published articles, 6 books, the most famous university professor in Canada. Retractions of this work came 8 years after his death.

Arthur Jensen: Wrote a controversial paper in 1969. Ended up publishing 400 articles. Remained a professor for his full life.

Hans Eysenck: The most cited living psychologist in peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. It took more than 20 years before any of his papers were retracted.

There's a lot of published articles about the "contrary view" that you can read. You can also read the rebuttals by the current scientific consensus (cited above).

> The analogous claim would therefore be that “although height differences have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in height between families have a genetic basis.” This seems very clearly false to me.

But this is not an analogous claim since you're talking about disparities between families. The analogous claim would be: "although height differences have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that disparities in height between groups have a genetic basis".

A very simple example for height[1]: The Japanese grew 10 cm taller from mid-20th century to early 2000s. Originally people thought that the shortness of the Japanese was related to their genetics, but this rapid growth (which also correlates with their improved economy) suggests that the group difference between Japanese and other groups was not related to the genetic component of height variance.

[1]: Secular Changes in Relative Height of Children in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan: Is “Genetics” the Key Determinant? https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.000857.pdf
by jacquesm | 2025-08-17 18:14:52+00:00
You're wrong. Some of the smartest kids I know are from immigrant children. It is their background - and society's response to that background - that hinders them, not their genetics. More so if they aren't lily white. Note how anything you say about this subject will be used to generalize to much larger groups (of which you can find some prime examples in this very thread) than the ones that IQ tests themselves target: individuals. And you can't say much about how an individual scores on their IQ test without accounting for their environment because that's a massive factor.

All of your arguments more or less equate to 'I don't understand the subject matter, but I'd like to see my biases confirmed'. And, predictably, you see your biases confirmed. But some of the smartest individuals that ever lived came from backgrounds and populations that - assuming the genetic component is as strong as you make it out to be - would have precluded them from being that smart.

Bluntly: wealth and access to opportunity have as much to do with how well you score on an IQ test versus what your genetic make-up is. Yes, it is a factor. No, it is not such a massive factor that it dwarfs out the other two once you start looking at larger groups. Income disparity and nutrition alone already negate it.

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

And that's just looking at that particular individual, good luck to you if your mom and dad were highly intelligent but you ended up as the child of drugs or alcohol consumers. Nothing you personally can do about that is going to make up for that difference vs growing up as the child of affluent and moderately intelligent people.

IQ tests are a very imprecise yardstick, and drawing far reaching conclusions about the results without appreciating the complexity behind squashing a multi-dimensional question into a single scalar, especially when you are starting out from a very biased position is not going to lead to a happy ending. Before you know it you'll be measuring skull volume.
by ACCount37 | 2025-08-17 18:14:58+00:00
I never have, and I've been in embedded for ages. So I've dealt with my fair share of chips, consumer electronics and not.

But one vital thing to understand is that a lot of those "vendor recommendations" exist to cover for rare 1% to 0.1% edge case failures.

You can put together 20 PCs, with none of them dying from ESD, and conclude that ESD "isn't a real issue". But if you have a company that puts together tens of thousands of PCs per month? Then those ugly 0.1% edge case failures WILL pop up and they WILL cost you. And if you employ enough people, one of them might be a son of Zeus with a wild Wimshurst machine hairstyle - capable of emitting two high power ESDs, complete with an audible crackle and a visible spark, per minute. So ESD straps it is.

The same applies to things like humidity control or reflow profiles for electronics. Not an issue ~99% of the time. The remaining ~1% can fuck you over in mass manufacturing, so disrespect the vendor at your own peril.
by api | 2025-08-17 18:15:01+00:00
So the change from sleeping on hay and riding horses and subsistence farming to this is just a facade?

I'm not talking about numeric wealth, which I agree is hand wavey, but actual tangible physical wealth as well as our insane increase in knowledge and capability.

I can go watch videos from the surface of Mars and pictures of galaxies from the beginning of time, then go to the doctor and get injected with something that programs my immune system to resist diseases I've never encountered, then ask an AI to explain any concept from the history of science or mathematics. I am middle class and live better than a pharaoh in a lot of ways, and some of the things I just described are available to the very poor. This is simply nuts and it is not a facade or an illusion.

The collapse of the numeric financial industry won't take all this away unless we let it.
by Tade0 | 2025-08-17 18:15:02+00:00
A while ago I had a recruiter try to, ahem, coach me on my CV, which apparently had too few details (apparently still enough to have this interview, but the irony was lost on her) and on my LinkedIn profile, which wasn't up to date and also had few details (deliberately BTW, as I was getting spam).

My gut feeling is that while there certainly are people who benefited from using LinkedIn, but for the majority it's just a vessel for being terminally online and a waste of time.
by lucisferre | 2025-08-17 18:15:39+00:00
I agree with this as well. I started my career at the height of ORMs. Most software developers were only learning the ORM APIs (which of course all differed significantly) and very few were learning SQL outside of the bare basics.

ORMs, like all abstractions, are a leaky abstraction. But I would argue because of the ubiquity and utility of SQL itself they are a very leaky one where eventually you are going to need to work around them.

After switching to just using SQL in all situations I found my life got a lot simpler. Performance also improved as most ORMs (Rails in particular) are not very well implemented from a performance standpoint, even for very simple use cases.

I can not recommend enough that people skip the ORM entirely.
by _dain_ | 2025-08-17 18:15:39+00:00
No, I don't buy this "I'm just making a neutral observation" schtick for one second. When people say "unconscious bias", they believe that the "bias" is harmful. If they didn't, why would it be so important to talk about? You are actually making a value judgement here, you just won't say so explicitly.

>I intentionally used an atypical demographic reality to demonstrate my point: that person is just as much "a 30 year old in the UK" as Nicolas. There are obviously many millions of other people who are not like Nicolas and it's reasonable that a conversation includes an eye to the diversity of experience around us for a host of different reasons.

The housing market in SE England sucks if you're young and work for a living; doesn't matter if gay or straight, man or woman, black or white. At any rate, I reject the notion that we can't talk about problems unless literally every last little niche demographic is affected. Not everything is about everyone. Someone must speak for Nick (30 ans).
by drankl | 2025-08-17 18:15:41+00:00
The author of the article alludes to why she avoided using their cult identities in writing the piece:

"The Zizians are certainly a lunatic bunch. Yet in some ways this vegan, trans death cult is only a very extreme expression of sentiments and attitudes that have been flourishing in elite, progressive circles for far too long. Indeed, the fact that the media has been determinedly using the Zizians' preferred pronouns in the reporting of their alleged crimes shows just how seriously their wacky beliefs are taken."
by astral_drama | 2025-08-17 18:16:12+00:00
I've developed a system that checks out a git repo into a docker compose container, tells claude to read a feature story, then implement it with --dangerously-skip-permissions turned on within the container. It work well enough.

I think it's another workflow, that might suit your needs, but I think the real magic continues to be in the model. Similarly, I'm sure Claudia adds some nice window dressing.

Eventually folks will settle in on some local maxima for interaction and software development with LLMs. Who know what it will look like? It'd be nice if whatever comes next bumps the industry out of the current scrum and sprint style workflows, if only to break folks out of the theatrics of these software personas and rituals.

Here's my WIP: https://github.com/astral-drama/filter
by dang | 2025-08-17 18:16:20+00:00
Related. Others?

Enlisting in the Fight Against Link Rot - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44877021 - Aug 2025 (107 comments)

Google shifts goo.gl policy: Inactive links deactivated, active links preserved - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44759918 - Aug 2025 (190 comments)

Google's shortened goo.gl links will stop working next month - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44683481 - July 2025 (222 comments)

Google URL Shortener links will no longer be available - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40998549 - July 2024 (49 comments)

Ask HN: Google is sunsetting goo.gl on 3/30. What will be your URL shortener? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385433 - March 2019 (14 comments)

Tell HN: Goo.gl (Google link Shortener) is shutting down - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16902752 - April 2018 (45 comments)

Google is shutting down its goo.gl URL shortening service - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16722817 - March 2018 (56 comments)

Transitioning Google URL Shortener to Firebase Dynamic Links - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719272 - March 2018 (53 comments)
by alphazard | 2025-08-17 18:16:41+00:00
Does this sandbox the agents? All I want is a way to keep the agents from writing to and reading from arbitrary places on the filesystem. I want that enforced using operating system primitives rather than a pinky promise with an LLM.

It already worries me that the Cursor agents occasionally try to perform operations with full absolute paths, which they wouldn't be able to know if they were properly sandboxed to the current directory.
by tacker2000 | 2025-08-17 18:18:09+00:00
At this point it doesnt really matter if its Apple, microsoft or google, etc..

These big tech co’s will harvest whatever is possible since user data equals hard cash and they will try and do it until they get found out, but even then it could take years until they actually get stopped or fined.

Its still the wild west out there since governments are so extremeley slow to react and they know that.

Also, Apples posturing as being the “privacy leader” doesnt mean anything anymore at this point.