MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by abustamam | 2025-08-07 14:37:24+00:00
I want to like passkeys but I haven't had any success getting them to work. Every time I click on "sign in using passkey" both my browser (Firefox or Chrome, on Android/Win/Mac) and Bitwarden are like "no passkeys found" and I'm never given an option to create one.

I feel like I'm doing something stupidly wrong or missing a prompt somewhere, or maybe UX is just shitty everywhere, but if I, a millennial who grew up programming and building computers, struggle with this, then I don't expect my mom, who resets her password pretty much every time she needs to sign into her bank, to get it to work.
by tempodox | 2025-08-07 14:37:25+00:00
Par for the course. This whole “AI” wave is one massive hype fest chock full of “creative marketing”, where you're hard pressed to find any reliable facts, how would “AI Ethics” even be a thing other than a massively hallucinatory artifact? If there were any ethics to be seen around “AI”, the first order of business would be to stop wasting those ridiculous amounts of energy for some cute parlor tricks.
by coldstartops | 2025-08-07 14:37:36+00:00
You built it because you wanted to share passwords:

And your flow is: I encrypt my password; I upload the encrypted password to your server.

And I share the password to the encrypted password as plain text.

Why do I have to upload the encrypted password to your server, and not just use signal disapearing messages, or telegram secure channel disappearing messages to share the encrypted password there.

And I can use any other side channel to share the second password, like whatsapp, or regular plain mail.

It feels to me that you made a two step process into a one step process but increased the risk by adding you in the middle.

Why would I offload my trust to you instead of doing the second step?
by Barbing | 2025-08-07 14:38:15+00:00
Indeed.

And if I had enough disposable income to upgrade to something with side airbags, it’d compensate for my lack of trust in others on that drive too! (little tongue in cheek here, just voting for letting some money leave a bank account for reasonably modern safety features—even some ultra-high net worth folks seem not to care at all about those)
by swordx10 | 2025-08-07 14:38:27+00:00
Remote: Yes (UTC+1)

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: TypeScript, AWS, React, React Native, Node.js, Express.js, Python, Typescript, Next.js, Fastify, CSS, Tailwind, Vue.js, SQL, NoSQL, Supabase, MongoDB, PostgreSQL, FastAPI, LangChain, Vector Databases, Firebase, Serverless Functions

Portfolio: https://sx-portfolio.com

Résumé/CV: https://sx-portfolio.com/resume.pdf

Email: emads14@gmail.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/emad-kheir/

Hi, I'm Emad Khair, a senior software engineer with 9 years of experience. I've worked for top-tier clients from all over the world ranking from freshly started startups to full scale enterprises.

I'm currently based in the GMT+1 timezone and I'm looking for a fully remote position. I have a strong background in both backend and frontend technologies including AWS, Docker, Node.js, Python, React, and more. I'm excited to bring my skills and experience to a new challenge and help build great products.

Looking forward to hearing from you!
by throw0101a | 2025-08-07 14:38:44+00:00
> It reminds me of something my grandfather would say “You can tell people a lot of things… you just can’t tell them the truth!”

There are three ways to make a living: 1) Lie to people who want to be lied to, and you’ll get rich. 2) Tell the truth to those who want the truth, and you’ll make a living. 3) Tell the truth to those who want to be lied to, and you’ll go broke.

* https://jasonzweig.com/three-ways-to-get-paid/
by aeon_ai | 2025-08-07 14:38:57+00:00
> "Context engineering is about giving your LLM the right inputs so it can generate useful outputs."

No.

If we're going to elevate and reimagine new disciplines every year (RIP prompt engineering), let's at least be thoughtful about it.

Context Engineering is not just "enhanced prompt engineering".

It is creating the context in which an agent operates such that its outcomes are realized.

Yes, this is partly about the input that an agent receives, but increasingly is more about creating a context-rich environment that an agent can effectively determine relevant context within.

That is a much more valuable and difficult problem space than "Shove the square context in the square hole"
by echelon | 2025-08-07 14:39:01+00:00
> came across a toot

> For the sake of my aching skullmeats

> My skullmeats did not thank me for this

> I hear you asking.

> Maybe if I give my whimpering neurons a rest

> I’d be much happier if someone just explained it to me; bonus points if their name is Clarissa.

> my gray matter needs a rest and possibly a pressure washing

There is a software engineering equivalent of the "theater kids" meme, and this is it. There's an abundance of exuberance in this writing.

I'm glad we have such diversity in perspective. It's a nice change from the usual terseness, though I'm not sure I could read in this style for an extended period.
by fennecfoxy | 2025-08-07 14:39:28+00:00
Quite interesting project. I find the topic of street photography interesting as well as many people don't realise that in most places they have no right to privacy in public, also that they use this power themselves even when taking their own photos (there are still people in the background).

Just picked up a Pentax 67ii as well - digital cameras are great for capturing must have moments but recently I've found there's something about film that makes me slow down and enjoy each shot so much more. I still have my phone for quick shots at the end of the day.
by nailer | 2025-08-07 14:39:31+00:00
> the parent isn't wrong either... if the attacker already has a private key you've probably already lost the war.

When you lose your private key, you have lost the war to protect your identity - anyone else can now be you. But in a properly designed system, that should not also compromise the signer.

If I steal your license I can pretend to be you, but I can't make the government say you are 7 feet tall.

You may be making the point that a compromised keystore holding all users public keys may leak the signers private key at the same time it has leaked the victim's private key, but there are many ways the victim's private key can be leaked in most cryptosystems (eg, the victim's private key on their device may be stolen).
by Spooky23 | 2025-08-07 14:39:42+00:00
Patents, by design, give inventors claims to ideas, which gives them the money to drive progress at a pace that meets their business needs.

Look at data compression. Sperry/Univac controlled key patents and slowed down invention in the space for years. Was it in the interest of these companies or Unisys (their successor) to invest in compression development? Nope.

That’s by design. That moat of exclusivity makes it difficult to compensate people to come up with novel inventions in-scope or even adjacent to the patent. With codecs, the patents are very granular and make it difficult for anyone but the largest players with key financial interests to do much of anything.
by vidarh | 2025-08-07 14:39:43+00:00
I've mentioned this on various threads before, but my Amiga 2000 with a bridge board and SCSI controller was a wonderful example of 1980's convoluted heterogenous multi-processing:

- The 68k, of course + an 68020 accelerator

- The 8088 + a 286 accelerator

- A Z80 on the SCSI card

- A 6502 compatible SOC on the keyboard...

As an Amiga user it obviously pleased me immensely that the 68k controlled the lot.

Like you, I hardly used the bridgeboard, though. It's main role was to show off the ability to run a "PC in a window".
by nashashmi | 2025-08-07 14:39:47+00:00
Other cities have established chartered “development corporations” to utilize underutilized assets and resources like land and make good uses for them.

They have been good for low income housing (often at the expense of lower income housing), low rent commercial spaces, low rent industrial spaces, amusement parks, real estate development, etc.

But this is gentrification and if you think it is necessary, then very quickly you will realize it is a problem. It homogenizes neighborhoods to support only a certain class of people while destroying other people.
by datadrivenangel | 2025-08-07 14:39:49+00:00
Imagine that for every task you receive, you also received a list of all the systems and tools you had access to.

So a JIRA ticket description might be several thousand lines long now when the actual task description is a few sentences. The ratio of signal to noise is now bad, and the risk of making mistakes goes up, and the models degrade.
by wkat4242 | 2025-08-07 14:40:10+00:00
An economic system like the US might be better for the 0.1% but overall it's a net negative. There's tons more violent crime because there's so much economic inequality. I'm very glad to live here.

Don't forget a country exists for all its citizens, not just the top wealthy, and not for companies. They're just a means to an end.
by m_ke | 2025-08-07 14:40:10+00:00
Exactly like the internet bubble. I've been working in Deep Learning since 2014 and am very bullish on the technology but the trillions of dollars required for the next round of scaling will not be there if GPT-5 is not on the exponential growth curve that sama has been painting for the last few years.

Just like the dot com bubble we'll need to wash out a ton of "unicorn" companies selling $1s for $0.50 before we see the long term gains.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-08-07 14:40:20+00:00
It's not a given that you can't run an airline without legacy software. There are other airline companies that have modernized. Or newer ones that don't have to. And also companies selling software.

The issue here is United penny pinching for decades and now they are stuck with their in house created mess. The right move for them could be to buy one of the smaller upstarts with less issues and then just roll out whatever the small company is using and retire the creaking old mess that just failed them.

Any project to slowly modernize or update that is doomed to fail.

You see the same in the fintech world where small relatively new banks are running circles around their older competitors.

In the energy world, a British company called Octopus is actually licensing their platform (Kraken) to lots of energy companies around the world. One of the interesting things about companies that move to that platform is that they become a much more attractive target for M&A as well; because the job of migrating all the old customers is easier if both companies that are merging use the same, modern platform. That's the hard risky part of any merger. Apparently, in some cases the decision to move to Kraken was motivated as a preparation for this.

I'm mentioning this because that's something that could work in the airline industry. Or United can just zombie on for a few more years and then end up getting absorbed into some other, more successful company.

This stuff must be costing them at all levels in the company. I can't imagine it's very efficient. And the airline industry is pretty cut-throat at this point.
by tzs | 2025-08-07 14:40:21+00:00
Services that use passwords for login need to do that too, because people lose passwords.

Even services that use login via emailed link need to do it because people do lose email access. Far too many people use the email provided by their ISP as their only email service, which can be very bad if they move to someplace that ISP does not serve or simply want to switch to another ISP in their current area.
by ryandrake | 2025-08-07 14:40:38+00:00
Or all that money might have been churning around chasing other speculative technologies. Or it might have been sitting in US Treasuries making 5% waiting for something promising. Who knows what is happening in the parallel alternate universe? Right now, it feels like everyone is just spamming dollars and hoping that AI actually becomes a big industry, to justify all of this economic activity. I'm reminded of Danny DeVito's character's speech in the movie Other People's Money, after the company's president made an impassioned speech about why its investors should keep investing:

"Amen. And amen. And amen. You have to forgive me. I'm not familiar with the local custom. Where I come from, you always say "Amen" after you hear a prayer. Because that's what you just heard - a prayer."

At this point, everyone is just praying that AI ends up a net positive, rather than bursting and plunging the world into a 5+ year recession.
by dylan604 | 2025-08-07 14:40:59+00:00
Why do you have that belief? If some researcher used AI, they'd be singing the praises of AI from the rooftops. There'd be Show HN on how cool AI is that it can find CVEs. VCs would be flooding the dev with offers, for what reason who knows, but that's VCs.

Why would you think someone would hide the use of AI? I'm not familiar with a timeline with that behavior.
by voxleone | 2025-08-07 14:41:25+00:00
In aviation, reliability and known failure modes often beat bleeding-edge innovation, which can introduce new, untested risks. That said, if billion-dollar companies are refusing to update critical systems due to cost-cutting or complacency, that’s a serious problem. But the framing shouldn't be “old = bad”; it should be “unmaintained or unadapted = dangerous.”

Let’s hold companies accountable for safety practices, not just the calendar age of their fleets.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-07 14:41:29+00:00
> These models are usually very decent at parsing out stuff like that anyway; we don't need the MCP spec, everyone can just specify the available tools in natural language and then we can expect large param models to just "figure it out".

This is mostly the kind of misunderstanding of MCP that the article seems directed at, and much of this response is focussed on things that are key points in the article, but:

MCP isn't for the models, it is for the toolchains supporting them. The information models actually need about tools and resources is accessed from the server by the toolchain using the information that is in the MCP, and the structure that models use varies by the model, but it is consistently completely different information than what is in the MCP—the tool and resource (but probably not prompt) names from the MCP will probably also be given to the model, but that's pretty much the only direct overlap. MCP can also define prompts for the toolchain, but information about those are more likely presented directly to the user than the model itself.

The toolchain also needs to know how the model is trained to get tool information in its prompt, just like it needs to know other aspects of the models preeferred prompt template, but that is a separate concern from MCP.

> If MCP had been a specification for _training_ models to support tool use on an architectural level, not just training it to ask to use a tool with a special token as they do now.

MCP isn't a specification for training anything. MCP is a specification for providing information about tools external to the toolchain running the LLM to the toolchain. Tools internal to the toolchain don't ever use MCP because, again, MCP isn't for the model, it's for the toolchain.
by zozbot234 | 2025-08-07 14:42:06+00:00
As I mentioned in a sibling thread, you can use that JSON structured input to constrain the LLM's output during inference so that it will only contain valid tool calls, in addition to smashing it into the context. This is valuable since it's going to be far more robust than assuming that the LLM can "figure everything out" from a natural language description.
by myrmidon | 2025-08-07 14:42:11+00:00
My point is that past expectations about AI where that it would be possible/most viable to set hard, explicit constraints on behavior, like how a stream of instructions constrains the behavior of a CPU.

There simply IS no explicit definition for "people", "hurt" or "don't" inside an LLM that you could found such hard constraints on.

Note that we never found a way to "program" such constraints into a human mind either, we probably/hopefully never will, and I think that whole approach ("simple, hard deterministic constraints") is just never gonna work for AI; so Asimovs rule framework is just not really applicable.
by chasing0entropy | 2025-08-07 14:42:14+00:00
If a person/CEO/employee would lie about productivity and projections then literally EVERY piece of training data would contain lies about productivity reports/projections, why would there be any question that ANY LLM would present untruth at some point.

LLMs are not pure AI because pure intelligence cannot come from an impure source of data. Furter, we are no longer curating data, we are modifying llm interpretation by weight which is lobotomizing the monkey. Pointless.
by kasey_junk | 2025-08-07 14:42:31+00:00
Home builders are “investors” in sfh. So out of the gate you’ve got a problem with making the regulations more complicated to navigate. For the people creating supply.

Some of those homebuilders build because they can rent homes if they can’t be sold. Others build because they have large investors to sell to if necessary. All of them build with their financial models account for carry time, as carry costs are extremely important to their bottom line.

If the average carry time goes up even a little bit (and it will because investors close faster) that can make whole developments untenable.
by nunez | 2025-08-07 14:42:40+00:00
From TFA:

> “We don’t believe in work-life balance—building the future of software engineering is a mission we all care so deeply about that we couldn’t possibly separate the two,” he wrote, per the outlet. “We know that not everyone who joined Windsurf had signed up to join Cognition where we spend 6 days at the office and clock 80+ hour weeks.”

996, American Edition, is almost complete.

Thanks, Elon! /s

I hope everyone takes the bait while they still can. Absolutely repugnant behavior.
by mmastrac | 2025-08-07 14:42:43+00:00
How can you tell that any Windows or Mac clone UI is a re-implementation? Easy: try to move your mouse diagonally into the Send To menu after letting it pop up. If the send-to menu closes as you mouse over the item into the submenu, it's a clone. If the menu stays up even if you brush over another menu item, it's either real or a Good Clone. :)

For the fun history, @DonHopkins had a thread a few years back:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17404345
by kqr | 2025-08-07 14:42:51+00:00
You're right -- that's what I was trying to say. There are all sorts of external systems tied into flight planning and operations, but once the plane has left the gate the plane should contain everything important already.

Thus, the only reason to recall a plane that's pushed back already would be to avoid problems that would occur only after it has landed. I would be surprised if the external systems were needed for the flight itself.
by onlyrealcuzzo | 2025-08-07 14:43:00+00:00
We'll never know what would've happened without AI.

1. There profits could otherwise be down.

2. The plan might be to invest a bunch up front in severance and AI Integration that is supposed to pay off in the future.

3. In the future that may or may not happen, and it'll be hard to tell, because it may pay off at the same time an otherwise recession is hitting, which smoothes it out.

It's almost as if it's not that simple.
by insignificntape | 2025-08-07 14:43:10+00:00
I think the reason people feel it's plateauing is because the new improvements are less evident to the average person. When we saw GPT-4 I think we all had that "holy shit" moment. I'm talking to a computer, it understands what I'm saying, and responds eloquently. The Turing test, effectively. That's probably the most advanced benchmark humans can intuitively assess. Then there's abstract maths, which most people don't understand, or the fact that this entity that talks to me like an intelligent human being, when left to reason about something on its own devolves into hallucinations over time. All real issues, but much less tangible, since we can't relate it to behaviours we observe or recognize as meaningful in humans. We've never met a human that can write a snake game from memory in 20 seconds without errors, but can't think on its own for 5 minutes before breaking down into psychosis, which is effectively what GPT-4 was/is. After the release of GPT-4 we strayed well outside of the realm of what we can intuitively measure or reason about without the use of artificial benchmarks.
by stasher-dev | 2025-08-07 14:43:12+00:00
Thanks for your feedback 'I tried to use of the shelf stuff for the crypto and utilised what I believe to be battle tested.

CLI uses node.js built-in crypto module only -randomBytes - createDecipheriv - createCipheriv.

Web app uses Web Crypto API only.

I'll send Filippo a Postcard and see if he will review it :-P
by chrismorgan | 2025-08-07 14:43:22+00:00
Firefox simply ignores height declarations that resolve to a value greater than exactly 17895697px. What’s this value? Just a smidgeon under 2³⁰ sixtieths of a pixel, which is Firefox’s layout unit. (It’s the last integer before 2³⁰ sixtieths, which is 17,895,697.06̅ pixels, 4⁄60 more.) I presume Firefox is using a 32-bit signed integer, and reserving another bit for something else, maybe overflow control.

Five years ago, Firefox would ignore any CSS declarations resolving like that, but somewhere along the way it changed so that most things now clamp instead, matching WebKit-heritage behaviour. But height is not acting like that, to my surprise (I though it was).

WebKit-heritage browsers use a 1⁄64 pixel layout unit instead. Viewed in that light, the 2²⁵ − 1 pixels is actually 2³¹ − 1 layout units, a less-surprising number.

IE had the same behaviour as Firefox used to, but with a much lower limit, 10,737,418.23 pixels (2³⁰ − 1 hundredth pixels), which was low enough to realistically cause problems for Fastmail, all you needed was about 200,000 messages in a mailbox. I’ve written about that more a few times, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42347382, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299569, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32010160.
by potato3732842 | 2025-08-07 14:43:46+00:00
>I’ve never heard anyone say that or allow it to affect their decision in a major way.

It happens all the time.

Half the time you see a facility that's using "temporary" tarp shelters and/or containers and/or trailers for some amount of it's covered area it's doing it for the taxes. The other half the time is for the expediency and flexibility (a sub component of which is fewer government approvals and government mandated steps, so basically taxes of another form).

Any time you have a commercial development across multiple lots they run the numbers both ways and/or they'll subdivide a big lot or they'll buy adjacent parcels crossing a jurisdiction boundary to minimize expense (not just taxes, construction as well).
by yesfitz | 2025-08-07 14:44:16+00:00
Companies make it clear how to report issues by having a separate support system. If you clicked a "Support" link and it took you to Twitter, I could better understand your confusion.

As for using social media to take issue reports: What will you do when you need PII or have to reassign the issue or reassign part of the issue and those people need to be able to contact the user?

"Why place the initial burden on a paying customer?" Because it creates a better service for everyone to have a known way of doing things.