MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ericyd | 2025-08-21 14:37:41+00:00
The UI is very nicely built, but I found the actual music making experience very unintuitive. I really didn't know how to build my own thing from scratch. I loaded the Funky Beat preset (indeed very funky once I got it playing!) and noticed a few things

1. I found the play/pause indicator to be confusing. When I loaded it, the play buttons were all highlighted which I interpreted as an "activated" state. Instead they were all paused. I get now that it's a toggle, but my intuition wanted a dedicated "play" button and a dedicated "stop" or "pause" button, with visual indicators to indicate the current "playing" state of the node.

2. One kind of jarring experience I had was it seemed that the loop restarted any time I changed an instrument. In the Funky Beat present, I was changing the "popkick" sample on the Beats node and it made it seem like the beat was continuously breaking and then re-syncing. It would be much nicer if the playback timeline was immutable and the patch changed on the next available iteration.

I think having a few extra items in the default state would be useful to hint to users how to use the software. Even loading Funky Beat by default would be a benefit so it's more clear how multiple nodes can interact. The UI is very clean and well constructed, I feel like there's promise here.
by mschuster91 | 2025-08-21 14:37:46+00:00
> Rather spend $500,000 on the hunt than $50,000 on training someone into the role.

Capex vs opex, that's the fundamental problem at heart. It "looks better on the numbers" to have recruiting costs than to have to set aside a senior developer plus paying the junior for a few months. That is why everyone and their dog only wants to hire seniors, because they have the skillset and experience that you can sit their ass in front of any random semi fossil project and they'll figure it out on their own.

If the stonk analysts would go and actually dive deep into the numbers to look at hiring side costs (like headhunter expenses, employee retention and the likes), you'd see a course change pretty fast... but this kind of in-depth analysis, that's only being done by a fair few short-sellers who focus on struggling companies and not big tech.

In the end, it's a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. It's fine if a few companies do that, it's fine if a lot of companies do that... but when no one wants to train juniors any more (because they immediately get poached by the big ones), suddenly society as a whole has a real and massive problem.

Our societies are driven into a concrete wall at full speed by the financialization of every tiny aspect of our lives. All that matters these days are the gods of the stonk market - screw the economy, screw the environment, screw labor laws, all that matters is appearing "numbers go up" on the next quarterly.
by actinium226 | 2025-08-21 14:37:56+00:00
I would want the first person to write 90+% of the code, and really more like ~98% of it, because at some point you need to just do your job. But I like the idea of having the reviewer make the relevant changes themselves and merge it in. That's more or less what we did at the first place I worked, and the expectation was that both of you were responsible for the code. If it was more than minor changes the second person could send you notes for you to implement, but they were always the person to merge. I prefer it to the alternative of chasing someone down so that they hit "approve" so that you can go back to your desk and hit "merge."
by ebiester | 2025-08-21 14:38:22+00:00
We never had that chance because you cannot coordinate 8 million people, much less 8 billion. And nobody was going to shut down all the coordination points of society such as grocery stores, pharmacies, and hospitals.

The CDC knew this at the time. The "flatten the curve" message was "slow things down enough until we know more and can avoid our hospitals from being overwhelmed and more people dying."
by PhantomHour | 2025-08-21 14:38:30+00:00
The answer is fairly straightforward. It's fraud, and lots of it.

A honest businessman wouldn't put their company into a stock bubble like this. Zuckerberg runs his mouth and tells investors what they want to hear, even if it's unbacked.

A honest businessman would never have gotten Facebook this valuable because so much of the value is derived from ad-fraud that Facebook is both party to and knows about.

A honest businessman would never have gotten Facebook this big because it's growth relied extensively on crushing all competition through predatory pricing, illegal both within the US and internationally as "dumping".

Bear in mind that these are all bad as they're unsustainable. The AI bubble will burst and seriously harm Meta. They would have to fall back on the social media products they've been filling up with AI slop. If it takes too long for the bubble to burst, if zuckerberg gets too much time to shit up Facebook, too much time for advertisers to wisen up to how many of their impressions are bots, they might collapse entirely.

The rest of Big Tech is not much better. Microsoft and Google's CEOs are fools who run their mouth. OpenAI's new "CEO of apps" is Facebook's pivot-to-video ghoul.
by aaronbaugher | 2025-08-21 14:38:31+00:00
Yeah, a whole lot of Americans who still click the "religious" box on a poll are just going on habit and family tradition, or they go to a church that's become part social club and part community charity center. (Nothing wrong with charity, of course, but you don't have to be religious to be charitable.) It doesn't mean what it meant a few generations ago, when, probably coincidentally, there was less crime.
by lukeschlather | 2025-08-21 14:38:32+00:00
He didn't actually say that. He said it's possible that within 2 years developers won't be writing much code, but he goes on to say:

"It just means that each of us has to get more in tune with what our customers need and what the actual end thing is that we're going to try to go build, because that's going to be more and more of what the work is as opposed to sitting down and actually writing code...."

https://www.businessinsider.com/aws-ceo-developers-stop-codi...

If you read the full remarks they're consistent with what he says here. He says "writing code" may be a skill that's less useful, which is why it's important to hire junior devs and teach them how to learn so they learn the skills that are useful.
by fbd_0100 | 2025-08-21 14:39:43+00:00
Progress on airplanes is often tracked by # of engineering drawings released, which means that 1000s of little clips, brackets, fittings, etc. can sometimes misrepresent the amount of engineering work that has taken place compared to preparing a giant monolithic bulkhead or spar for release. I have actually proposed measuring progress by part weight instead of count to my PMs for this reason
by cosmic_cheese | 2025-08-21 14:39:54+00:00
I have a soft spot for Mavericks too. It’s not 100% perfect (as post notes, scroll bars have been flattened and by then sidebar item icons had lost their color), but otherwise visually its probably the closest thing possible to “perfect” Aqua era OS X. It feels very refined in several ways that the earlier versions didn’t.

In my opinion the runner-up in terms of visuals is actually 10.4 Tiger, though — the dark grays ubiquitous throughout 10.5 and 10.6 have always felt kinda dingy and depressing in a similar manner to the dark gray Windows 95/98 (which, as an aside, is why I find the Windows 2000 variant of that look preferable, with its base gray being lighter and more cheery). That said I miss the 2D grid that 10.5 and 10.6 used for virtual desktops even today… the simplified 1D linear virtual desktops that’ve been in place since 10.7 feels needlessly watered down.

Funny enough that version of OS X can also run what to this day I’ve found to be the best implementation of a Quake terminal anywhere, in the form of the haxie Visor/TotalTerminal which added this functionality to the Apple terminal. The way it handled window focus and everything was so smooth and better than iTerm’s as well as any of the Linux dropdown terminals I’ve used.

On the note of Linux, I wish that there were Linux DEs that went the extra mile to produce a true OS X 10.4-10.9 analogue, but no such thing exists. The closest is elementary/Pantheon which is stylistically in the same ballpark but shares too much of its design roots with GNOME’s oversimplified iPadOS-like design. Everything else in the Linux world is Windows-type desktops or minimal WMs, both with flat UI themes.
by tomrod | 2025-08-21 14:40:02+00:00
During some of the earlier web service development days, one would find people at F500 skating by in low-to-mid level jobs just cutting and pasting between spreadsheets, things would take them hours could be done in seconds, and with lower error rates, with a proper data interface.

Very anecdotally, but I hazard that most of these types of low-hanging fruit, low-value add roles are much less common since they tended to be blockers for operational improvement. Six-sigma, Lean, various flavors of Agile would often surface these low performers up and they either improved or got shown the door between 2005 - 2020.

Not that everyone is 100% all the time, every day, but what we are left with is often people that are highly competent at not just their task list but at their job.
by klabb3 | 2025-08-21 14:40:13+00:00
> That's not necessarily inconsistent though

Pasting the quote for reference:

> Amazon Web Services CEO Matt Garman claims that in 2 years coding by humans won't really be a thing, and it will all be done by networks of AI's who are far smarter, cheaper, and more reliable than human coders.

Unless this guy speaks exclusively in riddles, this seems incredibly inconsistent.
by gruez | 2025-08-21 14:40:20+00:00
>The money laundering control systems, as well as being ineffective at controlling crime

The point of AML/KYC regulations isn't to stop all crime, just like the point of US sanctions on Russia isn't to stop all Russian exports. In both cases it's to raise the cost of doing business for the entity being targeted. In the case of Russia, they can still sell their oil to India or whatever, but at a steep discount. In the case of drug cartels, they can still get their funds into the regular banking system, but also at a steep discount. Smuggling pallets of dollar bills across the border and setting up a network of front companies is expensive. Doing all that also which implicate them in even more crimes, so even if there's no evidence of them smuggling fentanyl, they can be prosecuted purely on the basis of having a car full of cash.

>I have money from my grandad, received 40 years ago. No one really has records going back that far but you try buying a house and they want proof of the origin of the funds.

The better question is why are you were sitting on cash for 40 years. In that time inflation already ate 66% of the value, and if you factor in the opportunity cost of not investing the money in stocks/bonds, the loss is even greater.
by sxp | 2025-08-21 14:40:26+00:00
Since a human uses ~100W of power, the .24Watt-hours of energy for an AI prompt is about 40human-seconds [Edit: 9human-seconds] of energy.

And unlike the human who spent multiple hours writing that article, an LLM would have linked to the original study: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/measuring_the_envi...

[ETA] Extending on these numbers a bit, a mean human uses 1.25KW of power (Kardashev Level .7 / 8 Gigahumans) and the mean American uses ~8KW of power according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co.... So if we align AIs to be eco-friendly, they will definitely murder all humans for the sake of the planet /s
by maxsilver | 2025-08-21 14:40:38+00:00
This is also why I went into the Philosophy major - knowing how to learn and how to understand is incredibly valuable.

Unfortunately in my experience, many, many people do not see it that way. It's very common for folks to think of philosophy as "not useful / not practical".

Many people hear the word "philosophy" and mentally picture "two dudes on a couch recording a silly podcast", and not "investigative knowledge and in-depth context-sensitive learning, applied to a non-trivial problem".

It came up constantly in my early career, trying to explain to folks, "no, I actually can produce good working software and am reasonably good at it, please don't hyper-focus on the philosophy major, I promise I won't quote Scanlon to you all day."
by mdaniel | 2025-08-21 14:40:42+00:00
> CloudFormation is the only IaC that supports "running as a URL"

Incorrect, ARM does too, they even have a much nicer icon for one click "Deploy to Azure" <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manag...> and as a concrete example (or whole repo of them): <https://github.com/Azure/azure-quickstart-templates/tree/2db...>

> All IaC requires live cloud credentials. It would be impossible for them to work without live credentials ;)

Did you read the rest of the sentence? I said it's the worst of both worlds: I can't run "plan" without live creds, but then it doesn't use them to check jack shit. Also, to circle back to our CF and Bicep discussion, no, I don't need cloud creds to write code for those stacks - I need only creds to apply them

I don't need a state file for CF nor Bicep. Mysterious about that, huh?
by grishka | 2025-08-21 14:40:59+00:00
One nitpick about ActivityPub actor identity — the username doesn't have to be part of your ID (the URL that points to the JSON object representing your actor). It is in Mastodon, but some other software (Smithereen that I work on, and also Misskey) uses opaque identifiers derived from database row IDs. This allows for cleanly changeable usernames since you can just update your `preferredUsername` and `url` fields.
by tttpob | 2025-08-21 14:41:14+00:00
1. Position has been on hacker news 2 months ago. 2. I don't think there are features in position that is not possible through a vscode extension. 3. I want `ark` to be able to be used as a standard LSP. 4. Position has absurb experience when coming to ai. It has to use 2 difference system to do tab completion and edit/ask/agent. The experience is also not good --- I mean, even not good as copilot.
by OutOfHere | 2025-08-21 14:41:57+00:00
Money laundering is an absurd concept made up by a lazy government that fails to go after the actual underlying crime or criminals. They don't really have evidence of actual crime, so instead they target anyone they don't like. The ultimate effect it will have is of people exiting the government controlled financial system altogether.

One thing that consumers can do right now is to petition their favorite online vendors to start accepting cryptocurrency, at least a stablecoin that you can swap to.
by noboostforyou | 2025-08-21 14:42:03+00:00
The "best" depends on what you want. For example, with desktop memory the previous DDR4 gen Samsung's B-die was considered the top choice if you wanted the fastest speeds and highest overclocking potential. Micron's rev-e die was also desirable as it was usually dual rank (technically slower, but for certain real world applications you will get better performance) and also overclocked quite well.

Now with DDR5, Hynix's A-die is considered the best option.
by jasonvorhe | 2025-08-21 14:42:38+00:00
I mean, yeah, sure, you can run this. I wouldn't trust my personal data to such an old OS if it ever got connected to the internet and the system will slowly disintegrate while you're using it so I'd rather adapt to something like Omarchy on a modern Linux system instead but if this is bringing joy to some people, more power to them.
by respondo2134 | 2025-08-21 14:43:00+00:00
self-checkout at a grocery store is so maddening. There are enough edge cases (discounted items, multiples, lack of barcodes, special deals) to make it painful if you have anything more than a few staples. And I'm sure it's also part of the disgusting push to barcode & box produce which is a negative for everyone but the suppliers & stores.

>> IMO, if you want to have self-checkout, you need to accept a higher rate of loss

I agree this is the logical conclusion, but obviously they're not going to accept it when you can throw a fraction of the labour savings to hire some cheap security theatre that reminds the honest people big brother is watching.
by throwawa5 | 2025-08-21 14:43:06+00:00
> What does Vietnam do as a part of this alliance?

Buys American arms, lets US naval assets use its ports (including aircraft carriers), probably a lot of intelligence cooperation we're not aware of.

> You also better believe that when tensions flare up between Vietnam and China again, Vietnam will be begging the US for help.

The more likely scenario is that the US comes begging Vietnam for help in some future conflict because China shut down the South China Sea as part of a blockade of Taiwan, and used missiles to render all US airbases in the region unusable.
by KaiserPro | 2025-08-21 14:43:09+00:00
Its all in RSUs

Supposedly, all people that join meta are on the same contract. They also supposedly all have the same RSU vesting schedules as well.

That means that these "rockstars" will get a big sign on bonus (but its payable back inside 12 months if they leave) then ~$2m every 3 months in shares
by DanielHB | 2025-08-21 14:43:32+00:00
Governments can keep companies working for as long as they want. Usually that makes them less competitive over time though and it is all done at the cost of the tax-payer and adjacent industries.

The Chaebol model of Korea is a way to spin it while avoiding the less competitive part by forcing the companies to compete internationally while keeping the domestic market locked into the Chaebol offering.

For example the US gov could force (or subsidize) all datacenters in the US to use intel chips made in intel foundries located in the US. But on the international market intel would need to compete with its rivals.

This is all theoretically possible, but very hard to pull off politically. And it is not necessarily good for the country long term and certainly a tax to the country citizens/adjacent-companies in the short term.
by bitexploder | 2025-08-21 14:43:33+00:00
Memorizing is a super power / skill. I work in a ridiculously complex environment and have to learn and know so much. Memorizing and spaced repetition are like little islands my brain can start building bridges between. I used to think memorizing was anti-first principles, but it is just good. Our brains can memorize so much if we make them. And then we can connect and pattern matching using higher order thinking.
by rmunn | 2025-08-21 14:43:57+00:00
I found the bits-of-entropy analysis hard to follow, so here's how I explained the solution to my wife (who's not a programmer).

SPOILERS FOLLOW as I will be discussing the answer.

Looking at the table, device 3 obviously tells you if the bottle is from the "high" group (8-15) or the "low" group (0-7). So you line up the bottles and start using device 3 on them, and move them into two groups, 0-7 on the left and 8-15 on the right, as you get the results of each test.

Also, once you've found all eight bottles of one group, you can stop testing because all the remaining bottles will be in the other group. If you're lucky this might happen as soon as test 8, but worst case you must test 15 bottles, then you'll know which group the 16th belongs to without needing to check it.

Worst case: 15 tests done so far.

Now look at what device 2 does. For each group, 0-7 and 8-15, it tells you whether that bottle belongs to the "low" half of the group (0-3 or 8-11) or the "high" half of the group (4-7 or 12-15). Furthermore, in each group of eight, once you've identified four "highs" or four "lows" you can skip testing the rest. Worst case, you have to test 7 bottles of each group before you find four of a kind, and can skip at most 1 bottle per group. 2 skips total, 14 tests.

Worst case: 15+14 = 29 tests done so far.

Now you have four groups, 0-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-15. You use device 2 which will tell you whether each bottle is in the "high" or "low" pair for each group (0-1 or 2-3, 4-5 or 6-7, and so on). Worst case you have to test three bottles from each group before you are guaranteed to find a pair and be able to skip the fourth bottle. So worst case here is 12 tests.

Worst case: 15+14+12 = 41 tests done so far.

Now you have eight pairs that are 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 and so on. The final device, device 0, will tell you whether the bottle you tested is the "low" or "high" bottle of that pair, so you can arrange each pair in correctly-sorted order after testing one bottle. Guaranteed to need 8 tests, with no possibility of luck of the draw changing that number.

Worst case: 15+14+12+8 = 49 tests done and you've arranged the bottles in order from 0 to 15, so you now know the year of every bottle.
by JustExAWS | 2025-08-21 14:44:02+00:00
There is no pipeline though. The average tenure of a junior developer even at AWS is 3 years. Everyone knows that you make less money getting promoted to an L5 (mid) than getting hired in as one. Salary compression is real. The best play is always to jump ship after 3 years. Even if you like Amazon, “boomeranging” is still the right play.
by starwatch | 2025-08-21 14:44:03+00:00
It is an older paper, though that in itself isn't a reason to discount this (or any science). For example, the DoE still uses an 2014 predictive model to estimate longevity of today's EV batteries at "12 to 15 years in moderate climates (8 to 12 years in extreme climates)" [1]. However as the DoE says, battery longevity depends on a bunch of factors e.g. chemistry, charging patterns, etc.

To the practical matter - yes, EV manufacturers are very careful with warranty periods. Anecdotally, an acquaintance had a Tesla for 8 years. 6 months after the 8-year battery warranty expired the battery ceased working. The details were a little unclear (it was explained in broken English/Norwegian). That said, anecdata carries little weight. What we need is more peer-reviewed research to update our understanding of battery longevity. Until we have that we need to rely on the existing published knowledge... otherwise anyone can assert anything and we learn nothing.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250530000446/https://afdc.ener...
by miki123211 | 2025-08-21 14:44:12+00:00
I have an overwhelming feeling that what we're trying to do here is "Netflix over DialUp."

We're clearly seeing what AI will eventually be able to do, just like many VOD, smartphone and grocery delivery companies of the 90s did with the internet. The groundwork has been laid, and it's not too hard to see the shape of things to come.

This tech, however, is still far too immature for a lot of use cases. There's enough of it available that things feel like they ought to work, but we aren't quite there yet. It's not quite useless, there's a lot you can do with AI already, but a lot of use cases that are obvious not only in retrospect will only be possible once it matures.
by Nzen | 2025-08-21 14:44:18+00:00
There are a couple of responses to your question:

* focusing on one language across the several browser vendors reduces the resources required for the different dimensions that each language supports : security, compatibility, performance, communicaton overhead for language standardization

* LSP does not define execution semantics, it defines text markup. A browser need to execute code, not just show it. So, now, a given browser needs to have a language plugin or call out to system programs to handle language X. That was a big hassle when they used to do so with the jvm and flash because of the same issues as above: is the version compatible, is the communication secure, do the different language vendors and browser vendors communicate their changes to each other in a timely and efficient fashion ?