MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by epiccoleman | 2025-08-24 02:30:34+00:00
Yeah, I guess I'm not taking a stance on that above, just wondering where in that chain holds the most explanatory power for intelligence and/or consciousness.

I don't think there's any real reason to think intelligence depends on "meat" as its substrate, so AGI seems in principle possible to me.

Not that my opinion counts for much on this topic, since I don't really have any relevant education on the topic. But my half baked instinct is that LLMs in and of themselves will never constitute true AGI. The biggest thing that seems to be missing from what we currently call AI is memory - and it's very interesting to see how their behavior changes if you hook up LLMs to any of the various "memory MCP" implementations out there.

Even experimenting with those sorts of things has left me feeling there's still something (or many somethings) missing to take us from what is currently called "AI" to "AGI" or so-called super intelligence.
by MisterMower | 2025-08-24 02:32:42+00:00
There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair.

There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents.

The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists.

That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights.

The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated.

Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-08-24 02:33:41+00:00
Oddly enough, I know some of the long time rug sellers on University Ave and another without a storefront as a side business. Some of the vintage collectible ones go for $150k+.

I inherited my grandparent's 40-year-old Tibetan silk rug about 4x6m with a crazy dense weave. It's in storage, lol, because using it would wear it too much and sending it for cleaning it is a PITA. It's basically a white elephant item. I wished I had walls tall and long enough, because I'd consider framing it like a tapestry if direct sun wouldn't hit it.
by pfranz | 2025-08-24 02:35:34+00:00
> why is obtaining Python separately better than using a Python provided by the image?

I mostly work in a different domain than webdev, but feel strongly about trying to decouple base technologies of your OS and your application as much as possible.

It's one thing if you are using a Linux image and choose to grab their Python package and other if their boot system is built around the specific version of Python that ships with the OS. The goal being if you later need to update Python or the OS they're not tethered together.
by chatmasta | 2025-08-24 02:35:34+00:00
It’s a technique that will favor those skilled in BS — or more charitably, those skilled in social persuasion. And this is a risk for the founders, but there are plenty of cracked engineers who are also persuasive. The problem is they have little motivation to join a company with instability and looming uncertainty. So if the founders aren’t careful they’ll end up hiring someone more skilled at BS than any technical competency.

I’ve been the founder in this position, and I’m confident in my ability to judge talent, so I don’t worry too much about the risk of hiring a BSer. I know that if I want to hire someone then they’re qualified. But at what price? Once I’ve decided I want to hire them, the cost of passing — and restarting the cycle — is too high to push back on high counteroffers, especially when the investors are pressuring us to hire fast.

(fwiw, my next startup I will avoid raising any money until we have product/market fit… or at least I’ll tell the VCs pressuring me to hire too early to pound sand… this rushed hiring was a big contributor to the soft failure (acquihire), but I am proud we built a very strong team. For all our missteps and failures, hiring was not one of them.)
by shivasaxena | 2025-08-24 02:36:33+00:00
Curious if anyone know any implementation where they would be automatically updated?

Now that would be awesome!

EDIT: come to think of it, it would require going through CDC stream, and figuring out if any of the tables affected are a dependency of given materialized view. Maybe with some ast parsing as well to handle tenants/partitions. Sounds like it can work?
by tbd23 | 2025-08-24 02:37:06+00:00
I totally agree - having kids gave my life a meaning that I didn’t know I was missing until I experienced it. I’ve experienced higher emotional highs (and lower lows) than I think I would ever have any other way.

More broadly, I think western culture has abandoned the old trifecta of “God, family, country” (and I would add a fourth of career) that gave life meaning. All of those pillars have their problems but our culture did not replace them with anything expect a vague “do what makes you happy” sentiment that doesn’t seem to be working for a lot of people.
by kjellsbells | 2025-08-24 02:37:54+00:00
For your use case, the Citroen Ami is comfortably sub 10k.

But perhaps you are making a larger point about "things I consider unnecessary adding $$ to the base cost of every vehicle." I would say, to that, that

- your governments and voters consider them important for societal reasons, e.g. airbags so you can walk away from a crash, or cameras to help crushing a child when reversing. Presumably you are ok with this..or not?

- the car manufacturers in the EU are politically powerful and absolutely fearful that if the EU allowed the full range of global vehicles into the European market, they would be crushed overnight. Why buy a VW when you can get any number of Chinese minis, or Indian econoboxes, or even a cheap kei car. I guarantee that China keeps Daimler-Benz and VW execs up at night and that they have the full support of their workers when they spend money to lobby against low cost foreign imports...
by bastawhiz | 2025-08-24 02:38:51+00:00
Well general intelligence in humans already exists, whereas general intelligence doesn't yet exist in machines. How do we know when we have it? You can't even simply compare it to humans and ask "is it able to do the same things?" because your answer depends on what you define those things to be. Surely you wouldn't say that someone who can't remember names or navigate without GPS lacks general intelligence, so it's necessary to define what criteria are absolutely required.
by jampa | 2025-08-24 02:38:58+00:00
I felt that, too. It turns out I was getting 'too comfortable' while using CC. The best way is to treat CC like a junior engineer and overexplain things before letting it do anything. With time, you start to trust CC, but you shouldn't do that because it is still the same LLM when you started.

Another thing is that before, you were in a greenfield project, so Claude didn't need any context to do new things. Now, your codebase is larger, so you need to point out to Claude where it should find more information. You need to spoon-feed the relevant files with "@" where you want it to look up things and make changes.

If you feel Claude is lazy, force it to use more thinking budget "think" < "think hard" < "think harder" < "ultrathink.". Sometimes I like to throw "ultrathink" and do something else while it codes. [1]

[1]: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/claude-code-best-pract...
by kmoser | 2025-08-24 02:40:08+00:00
Have you tried plugging in a second keyboard and taking over where necessary? I do a lot of remote work in which my colleague and I work on the same computer and it's quite useful for either of us to jump in with our own keyboard (and mouse). It does take a bit of occasional verbal negotiation to agree on who really knows what to do (and can do it fastest) but if you communicate well then it's pretty easy.
by zdragnar | 2025-08-24 02:40:28+00:00
Claude code is neither sentient nor sapient.

I suspect most people envision AGI as at least having sentience. To borrow from Star Trek, the Enterprise's main computer is not at the level of AGI, but Data is.

The biggest thing that is missing (IMHO) is a discrete identity and notion of self. It'll readily assume a role given in a prompt, but lacks any permanence.
by wainguo | 2025-08-24 02:41:21+00:00
Great read! The analogy between physics and infosec is spot-on—both rely on understanding fundamental principles that are often overlooked. The "AES256-over-HTTP" anecdote is both hilarious and terrifying, highlighting how abstraction can hide critical gaps. As a dev, I see similar issues when devs prioritize speed over security basics. Curious—what’s your go-to approach for teaching devs about PKI or mTLS without overwhelming them?
by byronic | 2025-08-24 02:42:14+00:00
I actually thought this was going to reference the (earlier) 2000 Spolsky post (point 8 from https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...), which is itself dependent on the 15 minute per-person interruption cost (higher than 23m15s in aggregate time)
by walleeee | 2025-08-24 02:43:33+00:00
> It is vacuously true that a Turing machine can implement human intelligence

The case of simulating all known physics is stronger so I'll consider that.

But still it tells us nothing, as the Turing machine can't be built. It is a kind of tautology wherein computation is taken to "run" the universe via the formalism of quantum mechanics, which is taken to be a complete description of reality, permitting the assumption that brains do intelligence by way of unknown combinations of known factors.

For what it's worth, I think the last point might be right, but the argument is circular.

Here is a better one. We can/do design narrow boundary intelligence into machines. We can see that we are ourselves assemblies of a huge number of tiny machines which we only partially understand. Therefore it seems plausible that computation might be sufficient for biology. But until we better understand life we'll not know.

Whether we can engineer it or whether it must grow, and on what substrates, are also relevant questions.

If it appears we are forced to "go numerically", as you say, it may just indicate that we don't know how to put the pieces together yet. It might mean that a human zygote and its immediate environment is the only thing that can put the pieces together properly given energetic and material constraints. It might also mean we're missing physics, or maybe even philosophy: fundamental notions of what it means to have/be biological intelligence. Intelligence human or otherwise isn't well defined.
by oefrha | 2025-08-24 02:45:25+00:00
People are complaining because

make && make deploy

where the default target is simply `uv run --no-dev sus` and the deploy target is simply `rsync -avz --delete ./dist/ host:/path/to/site/` is hell a lot more neat, clean, effective, and lightweight? (And if you care about atomic deployment it's just another command in the deploy target.)

I have ~60 static websites deployed on a single small machine at zero marginal cost. I use nginx but I can use caddy just the same. With this "lightweight pattern" I'd be running 60 and counting docker containers for no reason.
by vips7L | 2025-08-24 02:45:46+00:00
> the anti patterns weren’t enough we also observe how Kubernetes has over 20 main() functions in a monolithic “build” directory. We learn how Kubernetes successfully made vendoring even more challenging than it already was, and discuss the pitfalls with this design. We look at what it would take to begin undoing the spaghetti code that is the various Kubernetes binaries built from github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes

It seems to me that perhaps it wasn’t the languages fault but the authors.
by sublinear | 2025-08-24 02:46:06+00:00
Sure, but what if the person moving the tables is in the middle of a larger logistical problem?

Caterers and guests are coming. More interruptions in the form of calls, texts, and emails don't stop and each is also "just 10 seconds".

I think it's pretty rare to find jobs where your role is so clearly defined that all you have to do is move tables. Most work asks that you solve a high level problem nobody else wants to deal with. You probably weren't asked to move tables. You were more likely asked to coordinate a venue for a wedding or something. The people assigned to you who were told they'd only have to move tables end up not finding them. Interrupting them is just as unacceptable because now they have to rush to home depot to buy them at the last minute and they're out of billable hours. They deliver the new tables and now you're the one moving them yourself.

Interruptions suck for everyone because there are always leaky abstractions and messy dependency trees. People incorrectly assume some details are trivial and factoring out the pain points is at least discouraged if not considered insubordination. Bad management and bad planning are everywhere.
by card_zero | 2025-08-24 02:46:43+00:00
There's that aphorism that goes: people who thought the epitome of technology was a steam engine pictured the brain as pipes and connecting rods, people who thought the epitome of technology was a telephone exchange pictured the brain as wires and relays... and now we have computers, and the fact that they can in principle simulate anything at all is a red herring, because we can't actually make them simulate things we don't understand, and we can't always make them simulate things we do understand, either, when it comes down to it. We still need to know what the thing is that the brain does, it's still a hard question, and maybe it would even be a kind of revolution in physics, just not in fundamental physics.
by nativeit | 2025-08-24 02:47:09+00:00
Say we get there--all the way, full AGI, indistinguishable from conscious intelligence. Congratulations, every thing you do from that point on (very likely everything from well before that point) that is not specifically granting it free will and self-determination is slavery. Doesn't really feel like a real "win" for any plausible end goal. I'm really not clear on why anyone thinks this is a good idea, or desirable, let alone possible?
by tshaddox | 2025-08-24 02:47:25+00:00
> You can't even simply compare it to humans and ask "is it able to do the same things?" because your answer depends on what you define those things to be.

Right, but you can’t compare two different humans either. You don’t test each new human to see if they have it. Somehow we conclude that humans have it without doing either of those things.
by ramoz | 2025-08-24 02:47:28+00:00
We’ve not determined whether or not that isn’t a useful mechanism for capable intelligence.

For instance it is becoming clearer that you can build harnesses for a well-trained model and teach it how to use that harness in conjunction with powerful in-context learning. I’m explicitly speaking of the Claude models and the power of whatever it is they started doing in RL. Truly excited to see where they take things and the continued momentum with tools like Claude Code (a production harness).
by burnt-resistor | 2025-08-24 02:47:29+00:00
And build toxic, explosive factories and petrochem facilities in residential areas also in flood zones. cough Houston cough

Residentially, Texas has crap tons of HOAs that forbid even minor changes, so permits don't matter. Texas is also pretty boring, spread out, and requires a lot of driving to do anything. Business-wise, tiny industrial-centric cities would be happy to permit an asbestos factory and an oil refinery beside a nursery school and farmland, and all in a known flood zone. Ask me how I know.
by thekid314 | 2025-08-24 02:47:43+00:00
I love this! I tried to apply the same idea to scan the tallest tree in New England with a drone. It didn't come out great, but I might just try again now.

Here is how it came out: https://www.daviddegner.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tree-...

It was part of this story: https://www.daviddegner.com/photography/discovering-old-grow...
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-24 02:50:03+00:00
The main problem I had was that apple is a really closed system. I'm not a one OS guy, i always need my stuff to work on windows, Linux, android etc. I don't even use iOS anymore because it's too limited.

Most of the things Apple offers in terms of cloud sync don't work on everything so it's a pretty but useless walled garden to me.

It's a shame because I was a long standing mac user. Because it was a good and fairly open Unix with a good UI. But since iOS became popular macOS has moved into a direction that didn't work for me anymore. They care more about locking users into their ecosystem now than anything else.
by andrekandre | 2025-08-24 02:50:58+00:00
> So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about.

completely agree, private sector should be private and public be public, and the two should never co-mingle (and that includes politicians owning stocks and bonds etc)... right now there is so much corruption (sorry, "investment") it boggles the mind

> I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.

because they are competing with china and they are wiping the floor with the competition, so they feel they need to do the same i assume
by zywoo | 2025-08-24 02:51:26+00:00
Haha, true, but I’m really interested in political theory and philosophy. So occasionally when I come across some very in-depth original content on Bluesky, it feels great. I’ve even made some friends there with whom I can have long-term conversations, for example, discussions on Bayesianism, rationalism and empiricism, as well as Spinoza’s Ethics. I’m not really interested in topics about the Democrats or Republicans, Biden or Trump.
by Reason077 | 2025-08-24 02:51:42+00:00
> "Nowadays, you're looking at €30k+ for a new, small car precisely because of the safety regulations"

Not really. There are many reasons why new cars are more expensive than they used to be. But safety features like AEB and lane assist are a relatively small part of it. Adding AEB specifically is estimated to cost $100-$300 per vehicle in the US, and it wouldn't be much different in Europe.

And AEB is proven to work: reducing the rate of accidents by 40% or more. A small price to pay if it prevents the car getting damaged even once in it's life, let alone preventing an injury or death.

Also, it will depend on your location specifically, but there are plenty of new, entry-level vehicle models sold in Europe for well under €20k, including taxes and on-road costs.
by kelnos | 2025-08-24 02:52:11+00:00
I disagree. We claim that biological humans have general intelligence because we are biased and arrogant, and experience hubris. I'm not saying we aren't generally intelligent, but a big part of believing we are is because not believing so would be psychologically and culturally disastrous.

I fully expect that, as our attempts at AGI become more and more sophisticated, there will be a long period where there are intensely polarizing arguments as to whether or not what we've built is AGI or not. This feels so obvious and self-evident to me that I can't imagine a world where we achieve anything approaching consensus on this quickly.

If we could come up with a widely-accepted definition of general intelligence, I think there'd be less argument, but it wouldn't preclude people from interpreting both the definition and its manifestation in different ways.
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-24 02:52:28+00:00
Yes but multi monitor in a Windows Centric office can also be troublesome because Apple continues to fail to support display port multi stream technology (MST) which means most docks will just give you one external display even if they have several. I've never understood why they're so bone-headed about this. It's not even a hard standard to support. It's just not invented here.

Only thunderbolt docks work properly but they cost a lot more so an office with 95% windows will not bother buying them.

I used to work on Mac management but the constant middle finger to enterprise needs got me to look for something else. For example, can you finally have apple federated IDs without having your email and UPN the same in the directory? This has been broken for years since they introduced federated IDs and I wouldn't be surprised if it's still broken.
by theden | 2025-08-24 02:52:47+00:00
My minor suggestion would be to not to use `COPY . .` as it could slow down the build process if it has to copy everything in the context that's not needed. Also a potential privacy/sec risk if private/secret data is copied the final docker image, but probably not applicable in a multi-stage builds where it's in an aux stage.

If you don't want to have multiple `COPY`s, you can add a `.dockerignore` file (https://docs.docker.com/build/concepts/context/#dockerignore...) with the `COPY . .` directive and effectively configure an allowlist of paths, e.g.,

* !src/ !requirements.txt
by ramses0 | 2025-08-24 02:53:09+00:00
It plays well with the Debian reproducible builds stuff to weed out as much non-essential variation as possible.

For certain packages, I'm guessing the byte-savings could be near-infinite. Already programs are encouraged to ship `foo` (potentially arch dependent) and `foo-data`, but imagine updating "just one font" in a blob of fonts, and not having to re-download _all_ other fonts in the package.

For some interpreted-language packages, these deltas would be nearly as efficient as `git` diffs. `M-somefile.js`, A-new file.js` and just modify the build timestamps on the rest...

The answer to your question should be relatively straightforward: just run it on a base/default major version upgrade and see how many MB of files have the same `md5` between releases?
by nativeit | 2025-08-24 02:54:51+00:00
I've literally not seen anyone in the last two generations who espouse free speech principals who then followed them when they reached a position of power. Quite the opposite, actually, the creeping fascism currently spreading its roots in the United States features heavily decrying limits to its freedom of speech, and then instantly abusing ambiguity and leveraging the inherent unbalancing of truth with misinformation and propaganda.

Just to be clear, I agree with everything you said. I just think "freedom of speech" shares a lot of issues with things like "communism" when put into practice by eminently flawed humans.
by arcanemachiner | 2025-08-24 02:54:58+00:00
Your sentence did not address every possible marginalized group, and is therefore willfully disregarding their situation.

Your swearing is offensive to someone reading your post. Your misuse of grammer as well. What about the people who can't read your post because they are blind, have dyslexia, don't have access to the Internet, etc.? How dare you!

Did you consider the viewpoint of every possible person who could have read your post before you submitted it? Of course not, because that's impossible, and would be an insane request to make.