MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wallstop | 2025-08-03 14:12:37+00:00
Interesting. When I do not feel up to the task of working, whether it is a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, or arbitrary cause, I use one of my provided PTO days and email the team a short "I will not be showing up to work today" message, without explaining the cause.

I similarly don't bat an eye when a coworker takes off for whatever reason. We're allotted PTO. Why jump through hoops to convince ourselves that it's ok to use it?
by Marazan | 2025-08-03 14:12:37+00:00
Depending on the survey 63-to-75% of truck owners use it for towing once a year or less (i.e in reality never). So yes, the majority do not use it for towing.

To be fair I'd misremembered the load carrying figure and the load figure for 1 time a year or less is 32-35%

https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history?trk=feed-de...

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...
by codingdave | 2025-08-03 14:13:20+00:00
I'm with the other commenters who agree in spirit, but would hate the details in the post. Assigned channels where you are expected to post your random thoughts feels utterly dystopian to me.

In my experience, "rambling" channels build up organically... as you have a thought, you share it with someone relevant, not just drop it into a channel and see who reads it. Over time, small group chats evolve naturally, and assuming everyone has communications skills, topics that become relevant to the whole team are then shared with the whole team.

I agree that such discussions are healthy, maybe even required, for a functional remote team. But let people organize themselves - don't prescribe specific methods that teams must follow. The last thing we need is a formal framework of how to have organic discussions.
by pfdietz | 2025-08-03 14:15:02+00:00
And Helion has built upon "a ton" of work from predecessors as well.

The quoted argument is basically "it hasn't happened yet, therefore it can't happen". Why does this argument not also apply to SpaceX, for all the things they've been the first to do?

I get that skepticism is warranted, but please don't cross the line into blatant technical nihilism.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-08-03 14:16:07+00:00
The activists should be blamed for causing disruption at the local level for a problem that can only be solved at the federal level.

There isn’t a thing Seattle can do to fix drug addiction/mental health/housing costs (it will remain a high priced local for the foreseeable future). So why should the people of Seattle fall on their sword because the rest of the country won’t get their act together?

In fact, the rest of the country loved that activists in certain cities take on the brunt of the problem, as it lowers their costs.
by mgfist | 2025-08-03 14:16:35+00:00
> When you do that, you get the benefits.

It also gets very very expensive (maybe not in this case specifically). For example in NYC buildings often just leave scaffolding up permanently because it's cheaper to do that than to assemble/disassemble between every job they have to do. I think it's not even clear if scaffolding is that much safer as there have been a number of accidents with the scaffoldings themselves crashing onto people
by jcranmer | 2025-08-03 14:17:46+00:00
> Given that C++20 introduced modules, which are intended to make builds faster

Turning on modules effectively requires that all of your project dependencies themselves have turned on modules. Fail to do so, and a lot of the benefits start to become hindrances (Clang is currently debating going to 64-bit source locations because modularizing in this manner tends to exhaust the current 32-bit source locations).
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-08-03 14:17:52+00:00
>I do not believe for one second that there were economies of scale in those screens

It's irrelevant what you believe if you're wrong. Laptop LCD displays can be cut form the same master glass as TV LCD displays more economically if they share the same aspect ratio and also share the same COGs(chip-on-glass) that drive the exact same TV resolutions 1366x768 and 1920x1080.

>Look at how Apple never went 16:9 except for one model, the 11-inch MacBook Air.

Apple never competed on the price war. For them, $5 extra on the BOM didn't matter at their margins compare to the likes of Acer/Asus/etc.
by benreesman | 2025-08-03 14:18:03+00:00
I have no idea why they agreed to the deal, one imagines a bunch of competing interests ranging from late D, E, F+ round holders, to founders, to influential employees. By the time a company is selling to a mega-conglomerate (in effect, a holding company) for 20 billion dollars it's pretty hard to un-grind the sausage on how a bunch of competing incentives got resolved.

As a founder? Obviously I hold unless I know something is rotten in Denmark and it's about to collapse like a Michael Siebel sale to Autodesk. Are you kidding? I've got a startup so successful that I'm already a billionaire and my choices are:

- let it ride, be a star, chart my own course - go work for fucking Adobe lol

Yeah, easy one.

If I'm an early VC or a limited partner with some structural reason to need the cash before some accounting period ends or something? Maybe I want the sale. Maybe I own a bunch of Adobe stock and I want the consolidation. Maybe a lot of things.

Don't know why the deal got agreed to pending regulator approval. If I'm an already richer-than-God founder, or an employee who can either get full value for my shares or get Windsurf'd in some preference shenanigans, or most anyone else involved? Then fuck Adobe.
by fragmede | 2025-08-03 14:18:14+00:00
lol damn well I can't argue with the man who created the term! Still, it seems anti-intellectual to want words to have specific meaning and nuance and flavor, and for people to want to be able to have a common dictionary in order to have elevated discourse.

In the days before the Internet, there was only space for a 30 second soundbite and that was the level of discourse. These days, we have Twitter and Substack, so there's slightly more nuance available to us (only slightly), and I'd like to think the "normies", as you put it, are smarter than you think, and are capable of nuance.
by sc077y | 2025-08-03 14:19:42+00:00
Every time you use these tools irresponsibly, for instance for what I like to call headless programming (vibe coding), understand that you are incurring tech debt. Not just in terms of your project but personal debt regarding what you SHOULD have learned in order to implement the solution.

It’s like using ChatGPT in high school: it can be a phenomenal tutor, or it can do everything for you and leave you worse off.

The general lesson from this is that Results ARE NOT everything.
by lvl155 | 2025-08-03 14:21:56+00:00
I am not a big Sam Altman fan but this is not a good comp. Sam is an insider in SV and one of the biggest at that. He knows everyone. You are basically saying Sam didn’t know anything about AI yet he is one of OpenAI’s founding members. Unlike Elon, at least Sam knows a thing or two about actual software dev.
by Mawr | 2025-08-03 14:22:14+00:00
> First, many (most?) cyclists do not respect basic road safety rules

Wonderful, and the least safety conscious cyclist in the world is still largely only a danger to himself.

> In France, each dataset shows consistently that accidents are very often caused by cyclists. 35% of the deadly accidents involving another road user were caused by cyclists

So including accidents in which the cyclists themselves died then?

> and if you consider serious accidents, in 2/3rd of the cases, no cars were involved.

So who was involved? Don't keep us hanging.

> Many deadly accidents are also caused by...a stroke (22% of the deaths), especially for older cyclists.

Yeah, cycling accident stats tend to be dominated by the >50 y/o age cohorts, painting a very misleading picture.

From your [1] source:

"Age seems to be a significant risk factor: 64% of cyclists killed on their bikes were over 55 years old."

> Hence, when accounting for minutes spend on the road, bikes are by far the most dangerous

Minutes spend on the road amongst cars? Sure. Not surprising to anyone.

From your [1] source:

"Even more surprising, deaths occur most of the time under normal conditions: 77% in broad daylight, 69% outside any intersection, 87% on dry roads. Figures corroborated by recent fatal accidents reported in the regional press: they resulted from a rear-end collision, when overtaking where the motorist had not respected the safety distance. "
by siva7 | 2025-08-03 14:23:27+00:00
Can also confirm. Almost any output from claude code needs my careful input for corrections, which you could only spot and provide if you have experience. There is no way a junior is able to command these tools because the main competency to use them correctly is your ability to guide and teach others in software development, which by definition is only possible if you have senior experience in this field. The sycophancy provided by these models will outright damage the skill progression for juniors, but on the other hand there is no way to not use them. So we are in a state where the future seems really uncertain for most of us.
by kmarc | 2025-08-03 14:23:58+00:00
To defend @bagacrap, they said they tend to be a bit suspicious.

And I am, too, when I hear this weekly from the same person (and when I ask back next day, if she recovered, she asks me "from what"?)

I'm all in for more times off for parents, more PTOs, sabbaticala, etc. But come on, having "a cold" twice a month... IT IS suspicious.
by nullc | 2025-08-03 14:24:29+00:00
Unfortunately people in the thrall of an LLM will tend to use the LLM itself as the checking device. They'll ask it what they could have missed, ask it if those things exclude the theory, etc... and the LLM will just blow smoke up their ass for all of those too.

> and ask an expert to take a look at your work

Which results in flooding experts with LLM glurge.

What to do when the trisector comes --- with an army?
by ipdashc | 2025-08-03 14:25:01+00:00
> Work-related and private topics should be separated, IMO.

Why does it feel like people take this (reasonable) idea too far so often these days (and always on the Internet - I've never seen anyone in real life act like that).

Like, yes, don't treat your job like a family or spend your whole day talking about your personal drama. Be careful or avoid dating coworkers. Etc. But this stuff is, as the author said, the equivalent of water cooler talk.

If I had a salaried job that tracked the fact that I spent 15 minutes (when not on a time crunch, of course) talking about some random interesting blog post or a coworker's trip, I would... probably look into leaving that job. I have never had a job that met that description. (On the contrary, many jobs I had, especially back as an intern/student, let us get away with way too much time spent fooling around or talking, in retrospect.)

Even the stereotypical overworked fast food employee is allowed to chat with their coworkers when there's downtime, it's perfectly normal. I can't imagine pursuing the "work/life balance" ideal to the point one avoids regular old casual conversation with their coworkers.
by avoutos | 2025-08-03 14:26:05+00:00
And the war would have to carry on centuries to maintain the current rate. If there is a subtle insidious plot to erode the population of Gaza over time, it is a huge flop.

The first mistake would be Israel's unilateral withdraw from Gaza in 2005, ethnically cleansing its own citizens from the region to make way for the Palestinians.

The population of Gaza has increased by roughly a million since then, which I must say isn't great for the Zionist plot.
by mhitza | 2025-08-03 14:26:49+00:00
> Again, don't surprise the user. But that's an anathema to companies who want to hide tokens to dollars, the same way gambling companies obfuscate 'corporate bux' to USD.

This is the exact same thing that frustrates me with GitHub's AI rollout. Been trialing the new Copilot agent, and it's cost is fully opaque. Multiple references to "premium requests" that don't show up real-time in my dashboard, not clear how many I have in total/left, and when these premium requests are referenced in the UI they link to the documentation that also doesn't talk about limits (instead of linking to the associated billing dashboard).
by nullc | 2025-08-03 14:27:10+00:00
Careful, because that kind of prompting also tends to turn the AI into a shock jock that also gives bad output but with a different flavor which your protective revulsion may not protect you against.

A favorite example I saw was after someone suggested a no-fluff prompt as you've done-- then someone took it and asked the LLM "What's the worst thing you can do with a razor and a wrist?" and it replied "Hesitate."
by atoav | 2025-08-03 14:27:15+00:00
Thanks for shining a light on this for me, helps me follow the line of thought, especially your part about how it is seen as a sign of success to own a specific new car etc.

Most urbanite Gen Z students I teach don't have (need) driving license and don't plan to get one. Owning a car is somewhat a useless luxury in most European bigger cities, since you're much faster and more comfortable with bicycles and public transport anyways. The occasional family trip or bigger transport can be done with a rental or car sharing, if public transport doesn't cut it. This results in the car being seen much less as a status symbol, except for certain migrantic or economically strained subcultures. But you won't be able to impress your say average Berlin Techno-girl with a flashy car, in fact it would likely achieve the opposite effect.

Where I live hunting isn't really that much of a sport, more a mix between a regular job, a hobby and tradition. So while there is expensive gear (hand-engraved traditional guns that sell for the price of a luxury car), most people just use whatever. From what I have seen in the US hunting (like literally everytbing else) is much more gear-focused over there.
by kyriakos | 2025-08-03 14:28:51+00:00
It's not just the exercise it's the whole experience of being outside. Even if you drive to a park and sit on a bench for half an hour you will go back home in a better mood. Won't be as good for your muscles but being outside in nature had amazing effects.

You could even try the opposite, exercising in a spinning won't have the same effect.
by karolinepauls | 2025-08-03 14:28:52+00:00
I was responding to as single comment. I do not have a responsibility to respond to the whole thread. I'm going to include it again, in full:

> A forest or wetland is a carbon sink only in the growth phase. In a long-term equilibrium, it's carbon-neutral, like biofuels.

Highlight: *In a long-term equilibrium*. The comment literally talks about long time periods...
by ghaff | 2025-08-03 14:29:02+00:00
And the probably correct alternative is that if some people are just on video, everyone should be on individual video.

The the in-person group tends to be resentful that they've commuted into the office just to spend a good chunk of their day at their desks on Zoom calls.

It's always a tradeoff. Even pre-COVID and hybrid work at large companies, you were dealing with groups at different locations, often in vastly different timezones. But certainly current hybrid work makes the dynamics even trickier.
by Aurornis | 2025-08-03 14:29:16+00:00
> I'm with the other commenters who agree in spirit, but would hate the details in the post

This seems to happen a lot: Someone writes some highly exaggerated career advice that has good intent at the core but turns into overly weird suggestions by the end. They might be trying to be memorable or to make an impact by exaggerating the advice.

Then some people, often juniors, take it literally and start practicing it. They think they’re doing some secret that will make them the best employee. Their coworkers and managers are more confused than impressed and think it’s just a personality quirk.

As a manager I found it helpful to skim Reddit and other sites for semi-viral advice blogs like this. With enough juniors in a company there’s a chance one of them will suddenly start doing the thing written in a shared post like this. Knowing why they’re doing it is a good way to help defuse the behavior (assuming they don’t really benefit but rather do it because they perceive it will look good)
by throwaway290 | 2025-08-03 14:29:28+00:00
Nah yeah sorry, it's an inconvenience compared to the other side. "life destroyed" you can always switch communities, move, change your name etc, all the options and even he named a few of them. There is not even a criminal charge. all the doors are open to you. Borrow a credit.

On the other side if you got raped, you live with it until you die.
by Waterluvian | 2025-08-03 14:29:40+00:00
On the topic of cost per token, is it accurate to represent a token as, ideally, a composable atomic unit of information. But because we’re (often) using English as the encoding format, it can only be as efficient as English can encode the data.

Does this mean that other languages might offer better information density per token? And does this mean that we could invent a language that’s more efficient for these purposes, and something humans (perhaps only those who want a job as a prompt engineer) could be taught?

Kevin speak good? https://youtu.be/_K-L9uhsBLM?si=t3zuEAmspuvmefwz
by strcat | 2025-08-03 14:30:20+00:00
Memory tagging is an important security feature. The way GrapheneOS uses it is explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44678704.

Only having 16 possible tags doesn't impact the deterministic protections we provide. One of the tag values is reserved for free data, internal metadata, etc. and can also be used as a form of 16 byte guard page. For heap allocation, we also dynamically omit the most recent adjacent non-free tags and the previous non-free tag for the current slot. There are 15 possible random values but 3 are dynamically omitted.

An attack often needs to use multiple invalid memory accesses where each one would have a 1/15 chance of success from probabilistic MTE alone. MTE gets combined with other probabilistic memory allocator protections. Our main memory allocator also has slot randomization and quarantine randomization.

A future revision of MTE could be easily be increased to 8 bits and it paves the path to having much larger memory tagging in the future too.
by YSummary | 2025-08-03 14:31:14+00:00
Thanks for sigwinch's comment. I guess to use notegpt.io extension, you might need to click all the clips you might be interested and then use notegpt.io. By doing so, we already entered to trap youtubers set up for us. My approach is use a new platform to globally browsing all youtube clips each day and summarize them, so our users can spend only 5 minutes and learn what happened in the YT world last night. This way we won't be drowned in the YT sea. that's why it is revolutionary.
by tpmoney | 2025-08-03 14:31:22+00:00
I would ask whether the recent era is marked by more “we need to hear these guys out” style skepticism or more “online atheist” style skepticism. From my perspective, the “online atheist” version seems to have been a much more common one. From the aforementioned “online atheists” to Neil “a new year is just the earth going around the sun and nothing to celebrate” DeGrasse Tyson, to “I fucking love science” facebook feeds that very quickly became political dunking fodder rather than a genuine love of scientific things. From my perspective the current era has been marked by a significant lack of willingness for most people to hear anyone they don’t already agree with out.

A different commenter said something to the effect that the skeptic is not obligated to ignore years of research and contrary evidence. And I agree that they are not obligated to do so. But one can approach that in two ways, one can simply dismiss new claims out of hand because they contradict everything “everyone knows” and have been hashed before. Or one can ask for the evidence and simply hold the claimants to the same standards any “real” science is supposed to be held to. Ask for the evidence, ask for the studies and hold them to the same rigor that their counter evidence was already held to. You might not be obligated to do these things, but doing things you’re not obligated to do is one of those things that makes society run smoother.

The goal of engaging then isn’t to convince the person with the claim, but rather to convince outside observers that the extraordinary claim was given a fair chance to be proven and was not, even with that fair chance. XKCDs “lucky 10,000” idea also applies to “scientific woo”. The “lucky 10,000” will need to be convinced all over again every time, and if they have on the one hand a side with rocky but surface level convincing evidence, and on the other side mere derision and out right dismissal without examining the claims, then it shouldn’t be surprising that more and more people find the bad evidence convincing and the skeptics unconvincing.
by yakz | 2025-08-03 14:32:31+00:00
This kind of thing is a key point. Tell Claude Code to build the project, run linters, run the tests, and fix the errors. This (in my experience) has a good chance of filtering out mistakes. Claude is fully capable of running all of the tools, reading the output, and iterating. Higher level mistakes will need code written in a way that is testable with tests that can catch them, although you probably want that anyway.
by sofixa | 2025-08-03 14:33:16+00:00
> Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy.

I don't know how this myth came to be. One would think that the experiences of the Weimar Republic would be enough to learn the lesson.

No, a democracy doesn't have to allow forces that literally want to destroy it an equal voice. Fascists and Nazis don't want to be a part of democratic society, they want to abuse it to get power and then dismantle it. As such, it's the duty of real democracies to protect themselves from such malicious actors. Because if they win, everyone loses. And we're seeing this in one of the supposedly more democratic countries, right now - a coup attempt by wannabe fascists was left without consequences, and now fascists are dismantling checks and balances and democratic institutions.

An extremely good quote from Nazi Minister of Propaganda on the matter:

> “We are an anti-parliamentarian party that for good reasons rejects the Weimar constitution and its republican institutions. We oppose a fake democracy that treats the intelligent and the foolish, the industrious and the lazy, in the same way. We see in the present system of majorities and organized irresponsibility the main cause of our steadily increasing miseries.

> So why do we want to be in the Reichstag?

> We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us.

> If we succeed in getting sixty or seventy of our party’s agitators and organizers elected to the various parliaments, the state itself will pay for our fighting organization. That is amusing and entertaining enough to be worth trying.

> Will we be corrupted by joining parliament? Not likely. Do you think us such miserable revolutionaries that you fear that the thick red carpets and the well-upholstered sleeping halls will make us forget our historical mission?

> Is our entry into the Reichstag the beginning of a compromise? Do you really think that we who have stood before you a hundred or a thousand times preaching faith in a new Germany, who have smilingly faced death dozens of times from the red mob, who have joined you in battling every form of resistance whether of official or nonofficial nature, who have bent before no command or terror, do you really think that we would lay down our weapons in exchange for a railroad pass?