MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rjpro | 2025-08-14 16:06:56+00:00
Congrats on shipping. Two quick wins on the lander:

Tighten the hero into one outcome + proof strip so value is clear in 3s.

Make the CTA specific with a risk note, e.g. “Start free 3-step setup — no card, E2EE.” Happy to share a short list of concrete fixes if useful.
by _swfb | 2025-08-14 16:07:04+00:00
Yeah, none of this is bad advice at all.

In my normal personal life I tend to be pretty sarcastic and self-deprecating. My therapist says it might be a defense mechanism to avoid actually confronting problems; if you make a person you're talking to laugh then they usually think everything is fine and stop worrying about you.

I try not to do that during interviews. I don't think I'm coming off like I'm trying hard to be smart or brag, but it's very possible and likely that some level of my normal insecurities are bleeding through, and that happening even subtly might be enough to poison it for me.
by pkulak | 2025-08-14 16:07:19+00:00
https://archive.is/Mi9DP

Scroll down to the long post by tomegun.

I kinda get the animosity now. I wasn't really using Linux at the time, but if I was, and my system was running great, and then I had a list of complicated instructions I had to perform to change my init system... I'd probably be peeved off.
by shmeeed | 2025-08-14 16:07:21+00:00
"Private parties" are _not_ me and you. _I_ can't begin to fathom how you come to believe you are, unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, held back from success only by all this legislative overreach.

"Private parties" are mighty multinational enterprises with essentially limitless pockets, entities whose factual power and political influence rivals most governments. Countries all over the world have been struggling to restrain them for the past decade in order to keep their sovereignty.

What exact "interests and ideas" do you have that would involve the necessity for public facial recognition? Because I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.
by martin-t | 2025-08-14 16:07:24+00:00
> not only did you not point out a single instance of their alleged intellectual dishonesty

>> It's likely to be worse though, as people don't do it.

> This whole last sentence is fallacious.

I did point it out, quite explicitly so.

> but let's ask an LLM what it thinks > So, it is factually true

LLM don't operate on facts, LLM generated output is irrelevant to your assertion. (I could do the same for your and robertlagrant's replies and get the same results but I won't bother. Do it yourself if you disagree with me.)

> intentionally lying about the emotional connotation of that phrase

I don't care that it's emotionally charged. I challenge you[0] to come up with a better way to say people are getting exploited without being emotionally charged.

[0]: Oh, I guess this is also manipulative. Might be just the way people talk to each other.

---

For the record, the video compares 3 distributions - what people think it should be, what people think it is, and what it actually is. Neither me nor the video mentioned "evenly distributed" like you claim.

> That's what you said, literally in the same line as the link:

And now you inexplicably claim something else:

>> to quote "1% of of America has 40% of all the nation's wealth"

Are you arguing 1% owning 40% and even distribution are the only 2 options?

> Just angry opinions and envy and greed > outraged and thinking that their outrage is a substitute for an argument > unable to parse actually coherent arguments > "passive aggressive dismissal" > the point of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, which means rational discussion, and not just emotional outbursts and fallacies

Please take your own advice here.

Note that ad hominems are still ad hominems even if you speak about me in third person. You claim you only attack my arguments and then conclude with this??? ;)

I am happy for people to challenge me and improve the way I can argue. I am also open to being proven wrong but then there has to be another explanation for inequality. Yes, you have no obligation to find it and I could be arguing wrong for the right position. However then refuting arguments against inequality without offering a solution is effectively supporting it - if people get the message that all arguments against it are wrong, then they will get the impression inequality is right.

---

Look, you might have had some good points in your first response and I might have assumed bad faith from robertlagrant too early because several things in his first post ticked me off. But your first reply already concluded with strongly emotionally manipulative language. Your second reply reads like you grasping for straws, any straws, to discredit me, throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. It does not further the solution to inequality in any way.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-08-14 16:07:24+00:00
>Under the advisement of my lawyer (ChatGPT)

Well I see the problem already.

On topic: this job market is a complete circus and I wouldn't gleam any rejections as it having anything to do with any factor you can control. So many jobs just disappeared for me mid-interview, with a few ending up as ghosts after 4-5 rounds. There's interviews where I do well but it's clear they had someone else in the pipeline with double my experience. Recruiter disrespect is also at very high levels and you'll be rejected for reasons they cannot legally disclose. Then there's the whole outsourcing issue and how the interview never intended to hire you, even if you were the perfect candidate.

Maybe one day we'll have a sane market again thst hires on the quality of the candidate. But that's not 2025.
by Mistletoe | 2025-08-14 16:07:29+00:00
An interesting thought experiment for me is I wonder when we read a statement like this from someone like Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, etc. in the future? The world changes around companies, and no empire lasts forever. Ask IBM. Ask the Dutch East India Company. Kodak didn’t adapt to a filmless world, what are FAANG companies not adapting to now?
by 12_throw_away | 2025-08-14 16:07:29+00:00
> he is smart and savvy enough (more than most CEO's who have drank their own kool-aid)

We're talking about Zuckerberg here? The one who spent how much, exactly, on the wet fart that was the "metaverse"? The one who spent how much, exactly, on running for president of the United States? He strikes me as the least savvy and most craven of our current class of tech oligarchs, which is no mean feat.
by dm319 | 2025-08-14 16:07:44+00:00
I guess because people want to track some things about their health, and people provide good pieces of software with a simple UI to do it, and this is more useful that, say, writing it down in a notebook, or in a text file or notes app.

I guess also people feel that corporations _shouldn't_ be allowed to do bad things with it.

Sadly, we already know with experience in the last 20 years, that many people don't care about what information they give to large corporations.

However, I do see more and more people increasingly concerned about their data. They are still mainly people involved in tech or related disciplines, but this is how things start.
Show HN: A visual size comparison tool for tech gadgets
by GuidoL | 2025-08-14 16:08:06+00:00
I built this tool to visually compare the size of tech products - like smartphones, e-readers, handheld PCs, speakers, TV/monitor display sizes, and more. It's an interactive canvas on which you can place, drag, rotate, and duplicate items. You can also place reference items to get a better idea of the scale.

Except for smartphones, a good tool to do this just didn't seem to really exist. It occurred to me that I already had all of the dimension data and images on my comparison site (ComparisonTabl.es), so I figured I should just build the tool on top of that.

Getting it right was definitely more of a challenge than I thought it would be. One of the main headaches was figuring out how to deal with the fact that on most products the given dimensions are for the main body of the product, but product image might have buttons, straps, handles, etc sticking out from that.

I also had to pay for a rookie mistake I made earlier; using JPG's with white backgrounds for all of the roughly 900 products added to my site so far, that I had to replace with WebPs with transparent backgrounds.

After dealing with all of that (and more), it's finally at a state where I'm happy to share it. The part I'm happiest with is how customizable and shareable everything is. You can create a very specific comparison, get the layout just right, and then share the whole thing with a URL.

Next up, I'm hoping to tackle AR. I'm already playing around with auto-generating simple 3D models from the 2D images and dimensions I have. The goal is to let you place something like a TV or a speaker in your room to see how it actually fits. Apart from that, I'm always working on adding more products and product categories.

Anyway, I just launched and would love to hear your feedback! Whether that's on the UX, any bugs you might find, what you think of the AR idea, or any other potential functions you'd like to see!

Thanks!
by morleytj | 2025-08-14 16:08:39+00:00
My general disagreements with those axioms from my reading of the literature are around the concepts of immutability and of the belief in the almost entirely biological factor, which I don't think is well supported by current research in genetics, but that may change in the future. I think primarily I disagree about the effect sizes and composition of factors with many who hold these beliefs.

I do agree with you in that I generally have an intuition that intelligence in humans is largely defined as a set of skills that often correlate, I think one of the main areas I differ in interpretation is in the interpretation of the strength of those correlations.
by Arainach | 2025-08-14 16:08:41+00:00
> A surprising number of people from these and other groups support conservative causes too.

Plenty of people (including the vast majority of Republican voters) vote against their interests, yes. Whether it's single issue voting, misinformation, or a variety of causes, "some X vote for this group" does not mean that the overall group does not hate or work against X.
by stackbutterflow | 2025-08-14 16:08:45+00:00
I'm providing a reason to tax the wealthiest.

It's not about Citizen's United, because it's very specific to the US, while it's a global problem that rich people have too much influence.

Forget about elections and politicians, they can fund media empires at a loss to push their ideologies. No one should have that much power. They can buy lawyers effectively putting them out of the reach of the law. So many problems would be solved or reduced in intensity by taxing them.
by nabla9 | 2025-08-14 16:09:34+00:00
> “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-14 16:09:34+00:00
I would counter, in that depending on the position(s) and candidate pool soft skills will make all the difference in the world when choosing between two technically sufficient candidates. It may not even be a conscious bias, so much as, "I'd rather work with this person."

Most technical jobs can be done by most sufficiently skilled, or motivated candidates with enough intellect to handle the work. Not always to a certain level of craft, efficiency or trend setting, but it's not about that to most business stakeholders. I say this as someone who deeply cares about the craft, despite a rather insulting depiction, including some of my opinions and age I came across earlier today (grugbrain.dev).

Likeability is hard, and even then striking a balance in a given context is also hard. It often comes down to a level of self-reflection, which is where I think TFA is at right now. Which is an attempt to establish a balance of personal responsibility, with "culture fit." Given that many of us have personality traits that tend to be deviations from the norm in many ways, it's all that more important to understand that in ourselves and our efforts to adapt to society.

A pinnacle of this in Television is the show Dexter, where he regularly brings in doughnuts. I've had coworkers that did similar, and it's impressive the amount of affect this has on the working environment and relationships in turn.

Beyond this, comes the counter-intuitive position of being far more skilled than an interviewer. This can definitely work against you at times as well for a number of reasons. Just because you are the most technically adept for a position, doesn't mean you get the position. The technical aspects of most jobs are more about a minimum of, can they do the job. Not, are they the best fit.
by nowittyusername | 2025-08-14 16:09:47+00:00
Saying LLMS are not good at x or y, is akin to saying a brain is useless without a body. Which is obvious. The success of agentic coding solutions depends on not just the model but also the system that the developers built around the model. And the companies that will succeed in this area are going to be the companies that focus on building sophisticated and capable systems that utilize said models. We are still in very early days where most organizations are only coming to terms with this realization... Only a few of them fully utilize this concept to the fullest, Claude code being the best example. The Claude models are specifically trained for tool calling and other capabilities and the Claude code cli compliments and takes advantage of those capabilities to the fullest, things like context management among other capabilities are extremely important ...
by deadbabe | 2025-08-14 16:09:54+00:00
Non-human intelligences have always existed in the form of animals.

Animals do not have spoken language the way humans do, so their thoughts aren’t really composed of sentences. Yet, they have intelligence and can reason about their world.

How could we build an AGI that doesn’t use language to think at all? We have no fucking clue and won’t for a while because everyone is chasing the mirage created by LLMs. AI winter will come and we’ll sit around waiting for the next big innovation. Probably some universal GOAP with deeply recurrent neural nets.
by SilverElfin | 2025-08-14 16:10:02+00:00
> Public schools have librarians who are trained in pedagogy. The librarians and teachers already know what books are appropriate for kids.

This training means nothing. Critical pedagogy is just code for biasing the books in libraries towards the left. It isn’t even a hidden agenda - the ALA has been open about it. This “pedagogy” isn’t about what’s appropriate for kids. It’s about using a public institution and its funds to push one side’s ideas.

So sure, the state may be trying to prevent kids from being exposed to ideas they don't personally like. But it is to counter the librarians and their organizations, who are trying to only expose kids to ideas they personally like.
by _kulang | 2025-08-14 16:10:12+00:00
I think lending credence to the idea that their politics are nuanced and complex is disingenuous. If you are going to make the claim that there is nuance, at least provide an example.

I’m sorry but singling out the “brown people” comment is a bit of a straw man in this case, as a “brown” person it kind of is really that simple. There really isn’t anything else to it, it is literally about the colour of the skin. Does it reduce countless cultures and experiences to nothing? Yes. But that’s sort of the point isn’t it.
by pinkfluffymochi | 2025-08-14 16:10:46+00:00
Fleak.ai | Full Stack | REMOTE or onsite (San Jose, California)

About us: we build semantic translation layer for machine generated data streams. The "google translate" for the machine universe to make every device on the planet off the planet AI-ready. If your ambition is not just building another workflow AI agent but bringing AI into the mission critical backbone of our society.

Please apply here: https://amazing-diadem-1ef.notion.site/Full-Stack-Engineer-2...
by morkalork | 2025-08-14 16:10:51+00:00
I don't buy the whole "it's not illegal, just buy it from a bookstore yourself if it's banned from the library" argument after what happened with Steam and payment processors. What's next? "Just buy these books from a physical bookstore (not online) that is cash only because payment processors have booted the store off their platforms. Also, only old/used editions are available because publishers are afraid to print new runs. But it's not illegal so stop crying"
by goosejuice | 2025-08-14 16:10:57+00:00
> So Apple is now responsible for the shit show of current web development and at the same time isn’t keeping up or doesn’t care about the web? Which is it?

Yes. Apple, who once promoted the web as a distribution model, changed course once they realized that doing so would lead to less revenue. They have been actively hostile to open web standards and PWAs as a distribution model.

https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/did-apple-just-break-web-...

https://proton.me/blog/apple-lawsuit

> And run once run anywhere has never worked in the history of the industry.

Yet it works pretty damn well on the web.
by azrazalea_debt | 2025-08-14 16:11:03+00:00
A lot of current LLM work is basically emergent behavior. They use a really simple core algorithm and scale it up, and interesting things happen. You can read some of anthropic's recent papers to see some of this, like: They didn't expect LLMs could "lookahead" when writing poetry. However, when they actually went in and watched what was happening (there's details on how this "watching" works on their blog/in their studies) they found the LLM actually was planning ahead! That's emergent behavior, they didn't design it to do that, it just started doing due to the complexity of the model.

If (BIG if) we ever do see actual AGI, it is likely to work like this. It's unlikely we're going to make AGI by designing some grand Cathedral of perfect software, it is more likely we are going to find the right simple principles to scale big enough to have AGI emerge. This is similar.
by rayiner | 2025-08-14 16:11:03+00:00
Pew’s extensive analysis of the 2024 election results has Trump winning 40% of asian voters and 48% of hispanic voters: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte...

Your point about hypothetical racist Trump supporters is wrong for two different reasons. First, I’ve been to Appalachia, and my wife is from rural Oregon, and nobody has ever treated me differently. My brother in law (part black, part Samoan, looks like the Rock) went to a Trump rally and Marjorie Taylor Green came to him to introduce herself. In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals.

Second, building a “brown people” identity around the possibility that someone will occasionally treat you differently is bizarre. I don’t claim that my experience as a brown guy (who has spent a lot of time in the rural south and rural west coast) is universal. But if my family and I haven’t noticed it, that suggests a ceiling on how pervasive it could be. It’s positively grotesque to encourage kids to construct an identity that doesn’t reflect them as individuals, because someone, somewhere, might occasionally treat them differently based on skin color.
by fbd_0100 | 2025-08-14 16:11:06+00:00
I recently started a new job (big upgrade from my last gig), and after onboarding, one of my interviewers told me that a major factor in him recommending me for hiring is that I "looked bored and ready to move on" during the technical interview. I'm not sure if trying to look bored is a winning strategy in general, but there is my personal anecdote.
by somenameforme | 2025-08-14 16:11:24+00:00
Wow, care to share your alma mater? That was the exact book we also used - some decades later, 5th edition for my class! Absolutely wonderful book. Wow, what a wave of emotions I got when looking at that book's cover again!

And yeah that course and book gave me a serious love of electrical engineering to the point I even considered swapping majors (it was part of the CS curriculum for us), and in hind sight I rather wish I did, but hey - wisdom to pass onto the kids.
by lalaithion | 2025-08-14 16:11:31+00:00
A couple nits, since we're already going above and beyond the normal amount of nitpicking:

1. In Kenji's article on how to cut an onion, he shows a picture after doing the horizontal cuts; he did five of them, not just one or two. (https://www.seriouseats.com/knife-skills-how-to-slice-and-di...)

2. I'm pretty sure I do more than 10 vertical cuts; there's no easy image in the link above and the video cuts before he does all the vertical cuts, but I think he's doing at least 20.

3. In real life, an onion starts flexing and bending when you cut. With a very sharp knife, I'm sure you do get a bunch of the small pieces which throw off the standard deviation for the "more cuts" method, but a bunch of the small pieces won't actually be cut as a layer of the onion is pushed out of the way instead of a tiny piece cut off.
by latexr | 2025-08-14 16:11:34+00:00
> Every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.

That is too reductive and simply not true. Contemporary critiques of AI include that they waste precious resources (such as water and energy) and accelerate bad environmental and societal outcomes (such as climate change, the spread of misinformation, loss of expertise), among others. Critiques go far beyond “hur dur, LLM can’t code good”, and those problems are both serious and urgent. Keep sweeping critiques under the rug because “they’ll be solved in the next five years” (eternally away) and it may be too late. Critiques have to take into account the now and the very real repercussions already happening.
by Razengan | 2025-08-14 16:12:06+00:00
I'd be happy with an AI that can just "train" on me: Just see what I do, learn from the repetitive tasks I do, and then do them quicker. An agent that is basically me x 10.

Start blank with no corporate-controlled/crippled state and just become me.

In fact, that might be the only way to let computers appear to grow faster into the future, even if their internal hardware only gets minor incremental improvements: Have your shit done before you sit down to do it.
by gorgoiler | 2025-08-14 16:12:24+00:00
It’s a sign of the times that the powers that be might make KJV, a labour of love and the apple of the author’s eye, come forth to fight the good fight and rake in some filthy lucre!

By the skin of their teeth, these wolves in sheep’s clothing’s days must be numbered, but if they keep on the straight and narrow, live by the sword, and go the extra mile, then lo and behold the first shall be last and every salt of the earth will be made a scapegoat from here to the ends of the earth!

after KJV, possibly with thanks to Bill (Shakespeare) also.
by jfengel | 2025-08-14 16:12:29+00:00
I'm less concerned with Trump voters (more or less the same people keep voting for him), and more with why ~10 million people didn't vote for his opponent (who had voted for her predecessor).

I don't believe it had anything to do with the price of eggs, either. That was presented as the primary reason, and it's so clearly wrong that it makes me suspicious.
by nicbou | 2025-08-14 16:12:41+00:00
Don't change anything on account of my personal taste. Here's a reddit post about the "LinkedIn writing style": [0]. It reads like a series of cliffhangers that never lead anywhere. It sounds like this [1] and feels like this [2].

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/LinkedInLunatics/comments/1e06itq/w... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tom6_ceTu9s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhpvmqrXe1w

Again, that's really just my opinion and you should not take this too seriously.