MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by raducu | 2025-08-11 06:57:42+00:00
Thanks, the issue was indeed not using explicitly the thinking model or they changed something over the weekend -- it's at least on par with Claude now.

EDIT: clearly better than Claude or any other model that I tried before. I had a bonus benchmark -- add a narrow triangle on the head of the snake that indicates the direction of movement, after a single iteration GPT-5 fixed it whereas Claude could never get the rotation of the triangle right, nor could o3 the last time I tried.
by brothrock | 2025-08-11 06:58:03+00:00
AI has drastically changed how I make decisions about code and how I code in general. I get less bogged down with boilerplate code and issues, which makes me more efficient and allows me to enjoy architecting more. Additionally, I have found it extremely helpful in writing lower-level code from scratch rather than relying on plug-and-play libraries with questionable support. For example, why use a SQLite abstraction library when I can use LLMs to interact directly with the C source code? Sure it’s more lines of code, but I control everything. I wouldn’t have had the time before. This has also been extremely helpful in embedded systems and low-level Bluetooth.

In terms of hiring- I co-own a small consultancy. I just hired a sub to help me while on parental leave with some UI work. AI isn’t going to help my team integrate, deploy, or make informed decision while I’m out.

Side note, with a newborn (sleeping on me at this moment), I can make real meaningful edits to my codebase pretty much on my phone. Then review, test, integrate when I have the time. It’s amazing, but I still feel you have to know what you are doing, and I am selective on what tasks, and how to split them up. I also throw away a lot of generated code, same as I throw away a lot of my first iterations, it’s all part of the process.

I think saying “AI is going X% of my work” is the wrong attitude. I’m still doing work when I use AI, it’s just different. That statement kind of assumes you are blindly shipping robot code, which sounds horrible and zero fun.
by dijit | 2025-08-11 06:58:12+00:00
Take that up with the author of the article.

Also, you missed the point entirely if the topic is “the population of x has gone from 1% to an estimated upper of 12.5% in 20 years” and your answer is “its below 10% right now”.

Not only are you potentially immediately wrong, since the number today could exceed 10%, it also doesn’t speak to how those demographics might be shaped by disparities in birthrates or continued migration.

But, you know that, you’re just trying to argue for some reason.
by SleepyMyroslav | 2025-08-11 06:58:40+00:00
>I think most programs will build in "safe release" mode

Do you have any citations to support this 'safe release' theory? Like there are not many Zig applications and not many of them document their decisions. One i could find [1] does not mention safe anywhere.

1. https://ghostty.org/docs/install/build
by jchw | 2025-08-11 06:58:40+00:00
I want to try Bottles again to see if it really does solve more problems, but I honestly find it a bit disappointing how there isn't really that great of a solution for managing Wine prefixes holistically. I always wanted to like Crossover, because I like Code Weavers, but in the end all of the solutions felt like ducktape over the problems.

Which might make one think that it's hopeless, but clearly it isn't. Steam shows us that this sort of concept actually can work reliably. I don't know how Steam actually manages the prefixes, but you never have to think about it and it always chooses a known-good Proton version. Lutris seems like it wants to do the same basic thing Steam does, and it is very useful, but often times Lutris's "known good" settings somehow don't work.

This is a shame, this problem feels like it can be solved and make Wine vastly more useful. (Though in the end, improving upstream Wine will always be better than trying to build layers on top of it like this... but building layers on top of it like this helps us with running Windows software now, which is still pretty useful.)

Aside from having better automatic bottle management and setup of software with "known good" settings, I'd like to see more things tried. Some software doesn't actually need a persistent prefix... maybe there could be a concept of an ephemeral prefix of some sort instead, to make those softwares work more reliably. And when software does have a prefix, it sure would be useful to be able to "undo" things, using snapshots. Features like this would go a long way to make Wine prefixes easier to manage for people who are less technical.
by cookiengineer | 2025-08-11 06:59:40+00:00
Don't get me wrong, I still love to code, and I still work on open source projects and I still believe in a future where sharing of mutual contributions lead to a better outcome for everyone. That's not my point.

I also am building up my own company for the last couple years. But I want it to be a sustainable company that promotes a healthy lifestyle and that doesn't overwork its employees, and one that doesn't aim for 2 years turnover/rehiring of staff...because I think these are the typical effects of a toxic work environment, and reflects the values I don't agree with, both on a personal and a professional level.

In the end we both have a different leading style, I guess!?
by unfixed | 2025-08-11 06:59:44+00:00
I tried those 3, and decided to go for bottles. The configuration needed in order to run Windows programms were really really easy, and I like the fact that I can keep all the Windows programs neatly organized in a single place, not only games (as Lutris and Heroic are intended to).

I also tried just wine, but Bottles is a handy wrapper.
by sudohalt | 2025-08-11 07:00:23+00:00
At the end of the day legacy students and their families bring in millions (maybe billions), why would they risk that by preventing a legacy student from admission. The positives greatly outweigh the cons.

When I went to Stanford there was a good amount of legacy students and tbh you can't really tell. If you come from wealth and aren't able to get into a top school you are most likely an idiot, and Stanford does a decent job filtering out the real stupid legacies.
by JdeBP | 2025-08-11 07:00:49+00:00
The Windows as a porting layer story is a whole subject in its own right. But the WINAPI macro was a porting thing.

But this is an example on this very page of the telephone-game problem that happened during the Operating System Wars, where the porting tool of the WINAPI macro that Microsoft introduced into its DOS-Windows SDK, allowing 32-bit programmers to divorce themselves from the notion of "far" function calls that 16-bit programmers had to be very aware of, becomes intertwined into a larger "Windows is a porting layer" tale, despite the two being completely distinct.

That a couple of applications essentially supplied 16-bit Windows as a runtime really was not related to the 16-bit to 32-bit migration, which came out some while after DOS-Windows was a standalone thing that one ran explicitly, rather than as some fancy runtime underpinnings for a Microsoft application.

* https://jdebp.uk/FGA/function-calling-conventions.html#WINAP...
by farmdve | 2025-08-11 07:00:52+00:00
I am actually fascinated by car electronics. I had heavily modified the software on mine, but it was easier than modern stuff, no encryption of the code, and even the checksum code only triggered a DTC with no consequences.

The only module that was encrypted was the main module, but it if you knew the security PIN you could do what you wanted. It was determined by people that if you observed the jitter of the CAN line fast enough, you could leak the pin via a side channel attack.

But modern car electronics are encrypted, and some probably have security processors that might trigger some irreversible states if you tamper with them. Modern cars are basically as locked up as a PS5.
by curiousgal | 2025-08-11 07:01:43+00:00
Queue the cynical takes on reputation laundering/taking the blame and personal relationships.

While possible, surely we can all agree then when a large business is trying to pivot/explore a new field, it does not necessarily have in-house talent to make that work, nor does it actually have technical/business/operational knowledge on how to make that work. Even for something as simple (to us) as making a new app for example, do you really think they can just hire a bunch of freelancers or even a specialized app dev shop and that would work? You need people who have done this before to manage that work, and McKinsey is a safe option to pick.

It's almost a trope at this point saying the knowledge they offer is useless but you clearly overestimate the knowledge big orgs have/have actionable access to.
by lelanthran | 2025-08-11 07:02:41+00:00
> 'm arguing that there's a skill that has to be learned in order to break through this. As you start in a new code base, you should be quick to jump in when you hit that 20%. But, as you spend more time in it, you learn how to avoid the same "context hell" issues and move that number down to 15%, 10%, 5% of the time.

The problem is that you're learning a skill that will need refinement each time you switch to a new model. You will redo some of this learning on each new model you use.

This actually might not be a problem anyway, as all the models seem to be converging asymptotically towards "programming".

The better they do on the programming benchmarks, the further away from AGI they get.
by zeroflow | 2025-08-11 07:02:51+00:00
It seems to be coming in multiple waves from multiple sides.

One of those is EUs ISA: First a display, now a warning and later actual interference with the driver.

And with the experiences with the current status are enough for me to be against those systems. The car doing an emergency stop because it saw a 30 sign an an adjacent road makes me not wanna purchase such a car. But there will be some time where no alternatives exist.
by senko | 2025-08-11 07:04:58+00:00
> This shows the core of the flaw in the argument.

> "The tool is great. If the result is not perfect, it is the user to blame."

That's not what the parent said. A tool can be useful without being perfect. A result can be good without being perfect.

LLMs are power tools, and can be dangerous (to your codebase, your data, or your health) if used improperly[0].

If you hold the chainsaw wrong and saw off your foot, it's not the chainsaw's fault[1].

[0] In this case "properly" means understanding they are nondeterministic, can hallucinate, the output will vary and should be verified, and that GIGO still applies.

[1] The Altmans of the industry do the technology a great disservice by claiming "AGI achieved", "will replace workers", "PhD level intelligence" and "it just works". It's false marketing, plain and simple. When you set expectations sky high, of course any tech will disappoint.
by bryanrasmussen | 2025-08-11 07:05:44+00:00
>McKinsey consultants are paid to say the things that corporate leadership doesn't want to say.

>AI is not replacing that particular service anytime soon.

what are you talking about?! That is the prime service for AI to replace.

What, you don't like our decision!? But the AI says we should fire you all, can't argue with AI folks, it's super smart.

hell, they just need a ChatGPT template that makes screenshots that says what you want ChatGPT to say for you and they're good to go. They don't even really need to use the AI. McKinsey does not look good in a world of AI.
by jinzo | 2025-08-11 07:05:56+00:00
I'm sure you are overestimating what an average car buyer cares about when buying the car. From the world where people pay for listening devices to put into their homes, small tracking devices they can stick into everything and so forth. Maybe if it becomes 'fashionable' to worry about privacy, and even then it'll be because it is popular not because majority will become privacy conscious. Unfortunately.

I think stronger regulations, protections and security is the way forward. Not going against the flow, as that is unfortunately a lost battle.
by sam_lowry_ | 2025-08-11 07:06:32+00:00
I actually do care. I am also emotionally involved. Bad code makes me feel bad, I am ecstatic about good code.

I am deeply saddened when I see people making the same mistakes over and over again.

This attitude negatively impacted my career on more than one occasion.

I am now doing a relatively low-pay work for the public services. My job is cleaning the Augean stables of decades-old Java code, but I feel better than shitting crappy code for the unicorn that none needs in the industry that should not exist.
by zevon | 2025-08-11 07:06:56+00:00
I was serious (though I like irony, yes). People are messy and if you want facts and knowledge, getting as close to source materials as possible is what one always has to do. LLMs can help but they are no replacements for knowledge work and learning.

Even my last paragraph served a purpose: To express that you probably will never get interaction in real life like you would with an LLM (if you are not in a position of power - take my slave example or take a retail sales experience for a less extreme example).

Not sure what you mean by "audience", through.
by MrGilbert | 2025-08-11 07:07:32+00:00
"Decent." was the first word that came into my mind. After a second, I realized that 250,000 USD ist basically 0.00022 % of Alphabet's (Google's?) annual net income [0].

A life changing amount of money for an individual, but nothing more than a small blip on Google's charts. Of course, I'm aware of "budgets" and "departments", and that one simply does not move funds between departments. And while my mind is on the verge of "maybe they should have paid more?", the numbers would mean that even 10x the sum would move the percentage by one decimal. It's wild how much money big corporations have.

I highly applaud the researcher for their tremendous amount of skill and dedication.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/1lh0pl4/google_is_n...
by funnyfoobar | 2025-08-11 07:08:08+00:00
Hi Thomas, this is Vamsi from India.

I have been working with Rails since 2015, and have worked with several high scale Rails apps from zero to production.

Recently been dabbling with AI stuff as well.

I can work in EU timezones comfortably, previously worked as a Staff engineer at Solaris bank, Berlin. I worked remotely from India.

Please find my resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dhcXqiK7gJI8ptQDdR6bKG7WrRy...

Please find my github:

https://github.com/vamsipavanmahesh

I can reached over here: gvpmahesh at gmail dot com
by hnlmorg | 2025-08-11 07:10:17+00:00
The vast majority of buildings do follow the same regional templates though.

The reason they’re not specifically concrete cubes is more to do with the relative unpopularity of brutalist design than it is to do with the artistic flair of architects.

In fact I’m sure most architects would love to stamp more of their creative personality into their work but they have to dial it back for cost and practicality reasons.
by notTooFarGone | 2025-08-11 07:10:36+00:00
Accountability sinks is the buzzword we are looking at here. It's to do something that is not easy to do in an organization due to major breaks in the current status quo.

The risk of doing one thing and complaints hampering the progress there is often too high which is why you give authority to a third party who will just do it regardless of feedback. One time breaks are necessary sometimes but can also be misused a lot for things employees want to do anyway. It's up to leadership to identify what is necessary and not generally possible with the current crew.
by brabel | 2025-08-11 07:11:16+00:00
How much Alphabet makes is almost irrelevant. The incentive here should be for security researchers. As long as there's enough incentive for security researchers to continue to report the bugs they find (which must be balanced against the potential payment a criminal could get if exploiting the bug, which is not directly correlated to the company's income either, at least not necessarily), the payment is appropriate.
by happymellon | 2025-08-11 07:13:14+00:00
This phrase is used a lot online.

> Musk’s increasingly controversial political actions have alienated the core of Tesla’s original customer base: environmentally conscious, liberal-leaning buyers.

Is that really the majority of purchases in the US. I honestly don't see how the Cybertruck ever leaned into that. Here in the UK the "average Tesla driver" is someone who moved from their Audi because they found something that was slightly more exclusive. Same sort of person who fails to signal and generally drives like an ass.

That killed a lot of desire from people I know for purchasing one prior to Musk going far off the rails.
by jonrosner | 2025-08-11 07:14:04+00:00
I can't reproduce this, even when forcing it not to reason:

"how many b's are in blueberry? don't think, answer fast."

blueberry • b → 1 (at position 1) • l → no • u → no • e → no • b → 2 (at position 5) • e → no • r → no • r → no • y → no

Total: 2 b’s.
by dastbe | 2025-08-11 07:14:24+00:00
the article is a bit breathless, which seems par for the course for security blogs these days. And while "containers are not a security boundary" is evergreen and something AWS has been trumpeting since the beginning, they IMO should also try and make it a bit harder for your to get access to the host credentials.

I do know the ECS team highly indexes on maintaining backwards compatibility and minimizing migrations wherever possible, but this seems like a case where it's warranted.
by pyrale | 2025-08-11 07:15:47+00:00
Or that they were hired by former mcKinsey consultants turned executives.

That’s the most egregious part imho, how when consultants get fired, the firm gives all the help it can so they can land a good job in a decision-making role at a potential client.

Have you heard of any company working as hard as mcKinsey, bcg, etc to help people they just fired?
by waste_monk | 2025-08-11 07:15:58+00:00
I thought the issue is more the batteries and weight distribution. That is, EVs usually have the batteries along the length of the chassis to spread the load out, which is not practical to retrofit onto an ICE car.

And if you fill the engine bay on an ICE car with battery packs during the conversion, the weight distribution will be extremely uneven and cause trouble with the suspension and related components, poor handling, etc.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-08-11 07:16:33+00:00
To be fair, goog has to pay comparable to other 3rd party brokers, and not necessarily "potential payment by exploiting the bug". Finding an exploit and being able to deploy it for financial gains are two distinct problems, with separate skillsets, risks, etc.

Plus there are some other benefits of disclosing to goog. After you get into VRP you get access to grants & stuff and can basically ask to study a problem and get funded for that effort. Being able to blog about it, pad your experience, etc etc. All while not having to look over your shoulder for 3 letter agencies your whole life :)
by hoherd | 2025-08-11 07:16:50+00:00
Seriously this. Doing code reviews on LLM created code is so frustrating. If the code was submitted by a junior engineer I could get on zoom with them and educate them, which would make them a better team mate, advance their career goals, and make the world slightly better. With AI created code the review process is a series of tiny struggles to dig up out of the hole the LLM created and get back to baseline code quality, and it'll probably be the same Sisyphean struggle with the next PR.
by vidarh | 2025-08-11 07:17:07+00:00
> The suggestions come from the failures, not from the success stories.

That thinking is flawed. The successes conclusively proves that the issue isn't systemic because there is a solution.

> That NN-models have an explicit module which works as a conscious mind and does lucid ostensive reasoning ("pointing at things") reliably respected in their conclusion.

Well, this isn't how LLMs work.

> That module must be stress-tested and proven as reliable. Success stories only result based are not enough.

Humans aren't reliable. You're setting the bar at a level well beyond what is necessary, and almost certainly beyond what is possible.

> I am interested in how they should work.

We don't know how they should work, because we don't know what the optimal organisation is.
by freehorse | 2025-08-11 07:17:31+00:00
Judging from your video, it depends on how long I am supposed to play this. If it is a few hours thing I see no issue but it could be tiring to stare at this for too long. I dig the aesthetic you are trying to create, though.

In the 14fps one, 14fps white noise is probably better than 60 fps white noise.
by watwut | 2025-08-11 07:17:35+00:00
> Isn’t it just much simpler to accept that they indeed provide value in making good judgements?

I have hard time to accept that one, because there is little evidence of them providing good value judgements. They come in and leave companies in disordered state. I have not seen or heard of them come and fix stuff.

And from what I have seen, they do not have processes or knowledge to not create mess. Their actual changes are made by people who have very little experience and whose experience is limited to being parachuted somewhere and leaving in few months. Otherwise said, they do not even know impact of what they do.
by TruePath | 2025-08-11 07:19:16+00:00
Some of the happiest and most satisfied people I know are academics who work 80+ hours a week because they love what they do. You don't need to sacrifice health to work more than 50 hours a week. And realistically there is no long term health damage from what he is doing. And yes you can trade money for better health, though in the first world you rapidly hit diminishing returns but if your sleep deprivation can make the difference between being able to afford good health care or moving to an area with less pollution it absolutely can trade off like that.
by WalterBright | 2025-08-11 07:19:41+00:00
Spending a lot of time debugging code. Eventually, the pattern recognizer in your brain will pick out the bugs. The term for this is "code smell".

For example, when I'd review C code I'd look at the str???() function use. They are nearly always infested with bugs, usually either neglecting to add a terminator zero or neglecting to add sufficient storage for the terminating zero.
by Minor49er | 2025-08-11 07:19:50+00:00
I'm not sure if someone did this already, but I reproduced this in GPT-5 and asked it to explain how it got this wrong. It responded:

"Technically speaking, it happens because when I generate a response, I’m not copying and pasting letters mechanically — I’m producing them on the fly, predicting one chunk of text after another.

When I tried to highlight the b’s in “blueberry,” my output process went something like this:

1. Internally, I represented it as: b l u e b e b r r y

2. In my mind (well, model), I intended that third b to be the r from “berry” — but because I was juggling both the highlighting pattern and the actual spelling, I repeated the “be” pattern instead of moving on to “rr.”

3. Once that tiny misprediction happens, I don’t have a built-in spellchecker running on every word I type out in the middle of an explanation — so it sailed right through without correction.

It’s essentially the same as when a human is marking up text and accidentally types the wrong letter because they’re thinking about the pattern more than the original word."