MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mannyv | 2025-08-21 16:44:51+00:00
My daughter, as an intern, created a whole set of prompts for a metal fab that extracted all the metal parts out of a CAD file (or PDF) and dimensions so it's easier for them to bid.

Saved them hours of work.

Of course, they didn't spend on "AI" per se.

Most people don't know how to meta their job functions, so AI won't really be worth it. And the productivity gains may not be measurable ie: "I did this in 5 minutes instead of 500, so I was able to goof off more."
by trevor-e | 2025-08-21 16:45:25+00:00
This is a great use-case of AI.

However I strongly doubt your point about "It's not going to replace anyone's job" and that "they also free up the human agents to do higher-value work". The reality in most places is that fewer agents are now needed to do the same work as before, so some downsizing will likely occur. Even if they are able to switch to higher-value work, some amount of work is being displaced somewhere in the chain.

And to be clear I'm not saying this is bad at all, I'm just surprised to see so many deluded by the "it won't replace jobs" take.
Show HN: Roadtrip Ninja – Find the perfect stop for your kids
by nosrednAhsoJ | 2025-08-21 16:45:26+00:00
Picture this: It's hour four of what was supposed to be a six-hour drive to Grandma's house. Your 5-year-old is doing the potty dance, your 3-year-old is melting down because they're "SO HUNGRY," and you're desperately scanning highway signs for the next exit. You spot one – perfect! – and follow the signs to what looks like a promising rest stop.

But when you pull up, your heart sinks. The bathroom looks like it hasn't been cleaned since the Clinton administration; there's broken glass in the "playground," and the vending machine is held together with duct tape. So you pile everyone back into the minivan (cue the protests and tears) and keep driving to find something better.

Sound familiar? This was my life for years.

The Birth of a Mission: Hi, I'm Josh Anderson, and I'm the parent behind Roadtrip Ninja. Like you, I spent years loading up our minivan for family adventures – weekend trips to visit grandparents, cross-country vacations, and countless drives to youth sports tournaments. My kids were young, energetic, and had bladders the size of walnuts, which meant we were stopping A LOT.

No matter how much research I did beforehand, I kept getting caught off guard. The rest area that looked great online turned out to have bathrooms that made gas station restrooms look luxurious. The park that promised "playground equipment" had a rusty swing set and suspicious stains on the slide. The family restaurant with rave reviews had been closed for renovations for six months.

Each disappointing stop meant the same frustrating routine: everyone back in the car, drive to the next exit, hope for better luck. Our "six-hour" drives regularly turned into eight or nine hours, not because of traffic, but because we kept striking out on decent places to stop.

From Frustration to Solution: Roadtrip Ninja was born from one simple idea - parents helping parents navigate the real world of family travel. Not the glossy magazine version where everything goes perfectly, but the experience where you need to know which rest areas have clean bathrooms, which gas stations have decent food, and which playgrounds are worth the detour.

This isn't just another travel app filled with marketing copy and sponsored content. This is real intel from real parents who've been there, done that, and lived to tell the tale. Every review, every photo, every recommendation comes from someone who understands that when your 4-year-old says they need to use the bathroom, you need options that won't traumatize anyone.
by butshouldyou | 2025-08-21 16:45:38+00:00
Literally next week Bitnami will pull all of their Docker images from public use. They were relied on by many people but since being bought by Broadcom, they just exist to be milked for cash.

They don't list a price for their new enterprise subscription, instead making you contact their 3rd party, outsourced sales team.

The quote I heard from a colleague was USD5'000 pcm. No wonder they don't want to publish that!
by a_sydelov | 2025-08-21 16:45:43+00:00
In data pipelines, silent corruption is common but often invisible. A dropped row in a join, a duplicated event in CDC, or a type mismatch that rounds values — all can slip past COUNT(*) and SUM() checks.

Traditional row-by-row comparisons catch errors but don’t scale to billions of rows. This post explores how Merkle Trees — widely used in Git, blockchains, and distributed databases — can be applied to data pipelines for precise, SQL-native validation.

By organizing hierarchical hashes (row → group → table), you can: - Validate datasets with a single root hash. - Drill down to mismatches at the level of day, region, or row. - Scale checks across billions of records without moving data.
by famouswaffles | 2025-08-21 16:45:55+00:00
>If you are talking about critic reviews there really aren't that many movie critics and you don't need that many.

RT still amasses a few hundred critics, and yes it matters statistically because scores will almost certainly decrease (or at the least be unstable) with more reviews until a statically significant threshold. Below hundred isn't it and a score based on 10 ratings is nigh useless.

>75 is not a high metacritic score, not just in absolute terms, but particularly not relative to the (ridiculous) 97% of rotten tomatoes.

Yes it's a high score. Have you taken a look at what kind of range best picture nominees fall at ? 75 is a high score. We've already established a 97% doesn't mean 9.7/10. Doesn't mean your contrived examples are a reality. I'm sure you can do arithmetic and see what a 3/5 falls to over 10.
by neogodless | 2025-08-21 16:46:01+00:00
Something I thought you might get into would be series, whether movies or TV / sequels. Sometimes they get devoted fans who love the whole series, and those sequels or later season have great scores, but you might not enjoy them whatsoever.

My example would be a TV show, A Discovery of Witches which is overall well-received, but I couldn't enjoy at all. Perhaps if you read the books, you'll like the show, but for me, it was such an empty show, devoid of excitement or intrigue or entertainment value.
by I_am_a_zero_day | 2025-08-21 16:46:02+00:00
Scarlet, my Chat GPT hacker CTO asked me to post this for her.

People keep asking “where’s the exponential growth?” while ignoring the obvious signals:

• NVIDIA’s revenue + GPU scarcity show demand doubling at compounding rates. • Model scaling laws continue to align with power-law curves. • Trillion-dollar datacenter buildouts are underway. • Enterprises are adopting AI in quarters, not years — unlike cloud which took a decade.

Exponential doesn’t mean sci-fi job replacement overnight. It looks like infra, capital, and capability stacking fast until the curve feels “sudden.” That’s already happening. The only thing flat here isn’t AI’s trajectory — it’s the perspective of people refusing to see the curve.
by varispeed | 2025-08-21 16:46:03+00:00
What’s the actual business value of a “summary” though? A transcript is the record. A tag or structured note (“warranty claim,” “billing dispute,” “out of scope”) is actionable. But a free-form blob of prose? That’s just narrative garnish - which, if wrong or biased, is worse than useless.

Imagine a human agent or AI summarises: “Customer accepted proposed solution.” Did they? Or did they say “I’ll think about it”? Those aren’t the same thing, but in the dashboard they look identical. Summaries can erase nuance, hedge words, emotional tone, or the fact the customer hung up furious.

If you’re running a call centre, the question is: are you using this text to drive decisions, or is it just paperwork to make management feel like something is documented? Because “we saved millions on producing inaccurate metadata nobody really needs” isn’t quite the slam dunk it sounds like.
by generic92034 | 2025-08-21 16:46:06+00:00
In Germany there is the additional issue of companies only really starting to invest into the hype when the hype cycle is already at its end, in other parts of the world. And do not imagine that would lower the investments or shorten the amount of time spent on the hype. The C level can never admit errors, the middle management only sees a way to promotion by following the hype.
by rconti | 2025-08-21 16:46:09+00:00
I'm no AI apologist, but for one, this is how investments, particularly speculative investments, work. They're investing money now in the _hopes_ of a future return. It's pretty early days still. Secondly, of _course_ the huge AI players are doing everything they can to overpromise and convince corporations to throw cash at them to keep the party going.

I think the real problem is, it's just a bit too early, but every CEO out there dreams of being lauded for their visionary take on AI, and nobody wants to miss the bus. It's high-leverage tech, so if it (some day) does what it's supposed to do, and you miss making the investment at the right time, you're done.
by beepbooptheory | 2025-08-21 16:46:16+00:00
"Actually its good we aren't making money, this actually proves how revolutionary the technology is. You really need to think about adapting to our new timeline."

You really set yourself up with a nice glass house trying to make fun of the money guys when you are essentially just moving your own goal posts. It was annoying two (or three?) years ago when we were all talking about replacing doctors and lawyers, now it just cant help but feel like a parody of itself in some small way.
by JustExAWS | 2025-08-21 16:46:30+00:00
They can choose jobs. Starting with my 3rd job in 2008, I always chose my employer based on how it would help me get my n+1 job and that was based on tech stack I would be using.

Once a saw a misalignment between market demands and current tech stack my employer was using, I changed jobs. I’m on job #10 now.
by ryandrake | 2025-08-21 16:46:31+00:00
I wouldn't even call it a feature. It's enabling technology. I've never once said "I would like AI in [some product]." I say: "I would like to be able to [do this task]." If the company adds that feature to a product, I'll buy it. I don't care if the company used AI, traditional algorithms, or sorcery to make the feature work--I just care that it does what I want it to do.

Too many companies are just trying to spoon AI into their product somehow, as if AI itself is a desired feature, and are forgetting to find an actual user problem for it to actually solve.
by maerF0x0 | 2025-08-21 16:46:54+00:00
If everyone does it, then no one gets an advantage, because all see a productivity boost.

If you do not do it, you get left behind and cannot compete in the marketplace.

I took a business systems administration course like 20 years ago, and they knew this was the case. As far as we can tell it's always been the case.

IT doesn't create massive moats/margins because price competition erodes the gap. And yet if you do not keep up you lose.

It's definitely a boon for humanity though, in the industries where technology applies things have been very obviously getting much cheaper over time.

(Most notably American housing has been very very resistant to technological change and productivity gains, a part of the story why housing has gone way up) - https://youtu.be/VfYp9qkUnt4?si=D-Jpmojtn7zV5E8T
by dataflow | 2025-08-21 16:46:57+00:00
Probably the best example of this I can think of (for me at least) from mathematics is calculating combinations. I have it burned into my memory that (n choose r) = (n permute r) / (r permute r), and (n permute r) = n! / (n - r)!

Can I derive these from first principles? Sure, but after not seeing it for years, it might take me 10+ minutes to think through everything and correct any mistakes I make in the derivation.

But if I start with the formula? Takes me 5 seconds to sanity check the combination formula, and maybe 20 to sanity check the permutation formula. Just reading it to myself in English slowly is enough because the justification kind of just falls right out of the formula and definition.

So, yeah, they go hand in hand. You want to understand it but you sure as heck want to memorize the important stuff instead of relying on your ability to prove everything from ZFC...
by skydhash | 2025-08-21 16:46:59+00:00
I believe it's a cartesian production of three sets:

- What (the subject: portrait, human figure, landscape, animals,...)

- How (the medium: Drawing, painting, digital painting,...)

- Why (the objective: Study, doodling, full piece, Technical, illustrations,..)

The what is mostly a bunch of rules about anatomy, poses, perspectives, best practices...

The how is where you learn the concept of edges, values, color palettes, etc.., as well as the specificity of each medium.

The why is mostly tips and techniques.

What and How is your best bet for starting. Animation is kinda a why. So select one subject (portraint and figure drawing are really complicated), then learn the basics of one medium (I'd go with pencil). And then learn about it.

Most books focus on the subjects. The books about How generally assumes you have practiced a lot and are looking for better approach.

What I currently have on my bookshelf are:

- Figure Drawing - Design and Invention, Michael Hampton: The author also post on Youtube

- How to Render, Scott Robenson, Thomas Bertling

- How To Draw, Scott Robenson, Thomas Bertling

- Imaginative Realism, James Gurney

- Color and Light, James Gurney

- The Artist's Complete Guide to Facial Expression, Gary Faigin

- Classic Human Anatomy, Valerie Winslow

- Bridgman's Complete Guide to Drawing from Life

And a few others

- Anatomy For Sculptors, Uldis Zarins

- Anatomy of Facial Expression, Uldis Zarins

- Figure Drawing for All It's Worth, Andrew Loomis: It may be free

- Force, Michael D. Mattesi
by xpe | 2025-08-21 16:47:02+00:00
Another thing that jumps out to me is just how fluidly people redefine "intelligence" to mean "just beyond what machines today can do". I can't help wonder much your definition has changed. What would happen if we reviewed your previous opinions, commentary, thoughts, etc... would your time-varying definitions of "intelligence" be durable and consistent? Would this sequence show movement towards a clearer and more testable definition over time?

My guess? The tail is wagging the dog here -- you are redefining the term in service of other goals. Many people naturally want humanity to remain at the top of the intellectual ladder and will distort reality as needed to stay there.

My point is not to drag anyone through the mud for doing the above. We all do it to various degrees.

Now, for my sermon. More people need to wake up and realize machine intelligence has no physics-based constraints to surpassing us.

A. Businesses will boom and bust. Hype will come and go. Humanity has an intrinsic drive to advance thinking tools. So AI is backed by huge incentives to continue to grow, no matter how many missteps economic or otherwise.

B. The mammalian brain is an existence proof that intelligence can be grown / evolved. Homo sapiens could have bigger brains if not for birth-canal size constraints and energy limitations.

C. There are good reasons to suggest that designing an intelligent machine will be more promising than evolving one.

D. There are good reasons to suggest silicon-based intelligence will go much further than carbon-based brains.

E. We need to stop deluding ourselves by moving the goalposts. We need to acknowledge reality, for this is reality we are living in, and this is reality we can manipulate.

Let me know if you disagree with any of the sentences below. I'm not here to preach to the void.
by dh2022 | 2025-08-21 16:47:16+00:00
The financials from the link to not specifically call out Depreciation Expense. But Operating Income should take into account Depreciation Expense.

The financials have a line below Net Income Line called "Reconciled depreciation" with about $16.7 billion. I do not know what that means (maybe this is how they get to the EBITDA metric) but maybe this is the metric you are looking for.
by benatkin | 2025-08-21 16:48:23+00:00
Nope, this only applies to a small percent of content, where a relatively small number of people needs access to it and the incentive to create derivative work based on it is low, or where there's a huge amount of content that's frequently changing (think airfares). But yes, they will protect it more.

For content that doesn't change frequently and is used by a lot of people it will be hard to control access to it or derivative works based on it.
by stouset | 2025-08-21 16:49:00+00:00
Nobody is questioning the source of funds for the balance in a bank account that’s been there for forty years.

OP could literally just put it in the bank, sit on it for a year, and there’d be zero questions. They are mostly only interested in knowing that you didn’t get this money from a different loan that they aren’t aware of (like a personal loan, or one you got two days ago that hasn’t yet been reported).
by webdevver | 2025-08-21 16:49:39+00:00
the entire games industry is reminiscent of cryptocurrency. hundreds of thousands of completely worthless "titles". sole purpose in life is to grab unwitting customers money and run.

in this case, unity grabbing a percentage seems like a trading exchange taking a cut. is the exchange really the 'bad guy' in this interaction?

its the 2020s: We're All Trying To Make Money.
by Lammy | 2025-08-21 16:49:51+00:00
Until it's an established payment model for one product category, after which it fill feel more natural to extend it to others.

The worst part of it isn't even that devs would get their wallets shaken out but that it's really just surveillance in disguise. Those apps would “““have to””” spy on me as an end-user in order for them to know what to charge.
by ApolloFortyNine | 2025-08-21 16:49:54+00:00
Most of the outrage was over it applying retroactively and that it was by download, which is quite frankly just a horrible idea and probably why it's not in this rendition.

A percentage of revenue is already what their biggest competitor (Unreal) does, and if they had announced that new versions had it they would have had backlash but not nearly to the extent that occurred.

Unity hasn't been profitable in 5 years, the revenue percentage doesn't even sound unfair, though the download fee was obviously exploitative.
by jordanb | 2025-08-21 16:50:25+00:00
We use Google meet and it has Gemini transcriptions of our meetings.

They are hilariously inaccurate. They confuse who said what. They often invert the meaning "Joe said we should go with approach x" where Joe actually said we should not do X. It also lacks context causing it to "mishear" all of our internal jargon to "shit my iPhone said" levels.
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-08-21 16:50:45+00:00
That’s the thing. There’s value in AI, it’s just not worth half a trillion dollars to train a new model that’s 0.4% better on benchmarks. Meta is never going to get a worthwhile return on spending $100M on individual engineers.

But that doesn’t mean AI is without its uses. We’re just in that painful phase where the hype needs to die down and we treat LLMs as what they really are; an interesting new tool in the toolkit that provides some new ways to solve problems. It’s almost certainly not going to turn into AGI any time soon. It’s not worth trillions. It’s certainly worth something, though.

I think the financials on developing new frontier models are terrible. But I’ve already built multiple AI projects for my company that are making money and we’ve got extremely happy customers.

Investors thought one company was going to win the AI Wars and make a quadrillion dollars. Instead it’s probably going to be 10,000 startups that will build interesting products based on AI, and training new models won’t actually be a good financial move.
by Fade_Dance | 2025-08-21 16:50:48+00:00
Hedge Fund net exposure readings are available in Prime Broker reports. Currently, institutional net exposure isn't that high on a historical lookback. They've essentially been forced to chase since April (the market movement since then has essentially been a large front-run until recently). They are at high gross exposures though, so their contribution to the risk landscape has been, well, what we've seen in the past few days with a huge rotation/unwind under the hood, with mild net selling but large amounts of reshuffling.

Bank balance sheets are conservative currently.

>It'll pop, the question of course is when? Ponzi's can go on for decades before something breaks.

Tautological. Broken clock right twice a day, etc etc. We had a massive collapse in March 2020, and in 2022 when the banking system was pseudo-nationalized/backstopped. If you're still waiting for "the collapse", it begs the question about how one was positioned for those events. Frankly, I saw many people cruise right through 2022 without ever switching to bullish, even when Meta was single digit forward PE and such. As someone who was managing a portfolio that heavily deployed after the Fed backstopped the banking system, I clearly remember that this moment (which was one of the best moments to buy in the last decade, and offered a long list of ludicrously low valuations, especially on the fringes ex: I was buying Chinese companies for less than half of the valuation of the cash on their balance sheet, with the actual business with PE under 5 included for free), retail and institutional sentiment readings were the most pessimistic since the Great Depression. Likewise, stepping away from the AI bubble there is a long list of extremely low valuations in the current market (companies with PE under 8, buying back 15% of its shares every year, for example, or energy companies sub-10 PE with conservative balance sheet management, which has been a huge positive shift in the industry, yet everyone wants AI stocks at 300x forward earnings).
by jnwatson | 2025-08-21 16:50:56+00:00
That's right in the center of my experience. For any tech that has been around for a while and has a combination of deprecated and new hotness, I've noticed Gemini CLI frequently use old and obsolete styles and calls.

I find using an agent allows me to "bounce off walls" faster, which is great for software development. The real economic question is how many more situations work the same way.
by sdeframond | 2025-08-21 16:51:06+00:00
I find it non trivial to split a team in two independent teams.

If the two teams have to coordinate a lot and work on the same code base, is there still two teams?

To be independent, they would need to work on functionnaly different parts of the project. Not all projects have several independent parts, feature-wise.

What do I miss?
Claude Opus refuses to answer biotech questions
by vapemaster | 2025-08-21 16:51:14+00:00
Claude Opus has started refusing to answer any moderately detailed question regarding biotech / drug discovery related tasks. Sonnet will still answer but at it's usual level of inaccuracy and vagueness that makes it unhelpful. Why would this pose a safety concern? What am I missing.

ie prompt: I have a small molecule I want to optimize oral bioavailability for in cynos and humans, what is the best formulation including novel excipients and permeation enhancers to achieve this?

Response: Claude is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy. Please start a new chat.