MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tomjen3 | 2025-08-31 07:15:05+00:00
Makes sense. I have seen far too many coworkers dismiss AI completely without trying it for their job.

At this point, you need to learn what AI can and cannot do, for the same reason you need to keep up with new versions of whatever framework you use. Since AI develops so fast (e.g many image use cases that AI would be terrible at 4 months ago, they now do perfectly), you need to repeat that exercise frequently.

There are 4 problems with adoptions as I see them:

1) Hype. Some people overhype what AI can do, which causes people to dismiss them when they don't immediately work;

2) Plenty of people don't like to change what they do/feel threatened by change. Doubly so when that change is perceived (real or not) to impact their job.

3) AI is weird and so it sometimes fails spectacularly at simple things, while it works very well at more complex things;

4) People use ChatGPTs free model or other AIs that are free. These are older/less powerful models, which means people end up with wrong expectations of what they can and cannot do.

5) Who likes to be told what to do? Especially by a clueless boss.

Where I running a company, I would ensure that my employees had access to a top of the line model and cursor/windsurf. I would monitor usage and have a talk with those whose usage was drastically lower than their peers.

However it would be a talk only - with the aim of figuring out why AI did not work for that employee, and what we could do to fix it.
by miki123211 | 2025-08-31 07:15:14+00:00
They could also follow the Gmail playbook.

For consumers, plenty of ads and plenty of tracking. For businesses, heavily-restricted user-to-server APIs and features gated behind subscriptions, think custom domains with Bsky hosting, multi-user post approvals, integrating DMs with customer support systems etc.

You can do all of that while still being fair to and interoperable with the rest of the ecosystem. As long as you don't want the convenience, features and UI of Gmail, you can still communicate with Gmail users from any other provider, and the same could be true about Bsky.
by jimbob45 | 2025-08-31 07:15:25+00:00
He’s giving that speech in China. It’s impossible to know if he’s glazing or not. Either way, I would want to hear him commit to building those factories in the US if education was not a factor. I suspect real estate costs, unions, OSHA, and US wages are bigger factors than he’s letting on. Still, I’m not going to fault the man for complimenting China while speaking to a Chinese audience.
by quotemstr | 2025-08-31 07:15:53+00:00
> Being correct comes second to being agreeable in human-human interactions

Prioritizing agreeableness above correctness is the reason the space shuttle Challenger blew up.

The bcachefs fracas is interesting and important because it's like a stain making some damn germ's organelles visible: it highlights a psychological division in tech and humanity in general between people who prioritize

1) deferring to authority, reading the room, knowing your place

and people who prioritize

2) insisting on your concept of excellence, standing up against a crowd, and speaking truth to power.

I am disturbed to see the weight position #1 has accumulated over the past decade or two. These people argue that Linus could be arbitrarily wrong and Overstreet arbitrarily right and it still wouldn't matter because being nice is critical to the success of a large scale project or something.

They get angry because they feel comfort in understanding their place in a social hierarchy. Attempts to upend that hierarchy in the name of what's right creates cognitive dissonance. The rule-followers feel a tension they can relieve only by ganging up and asserting "rules are rules and you need to follow them!" --- whether or not, at the object level, a) there are rules, b) the rules are beneficial, and c) whether the rules are applied consistently. a, b, and c are exactly those object-level does-the-o-ring-actually-work-when-cold considerations that the rule-following, rule-enforcing kind of person rejects in favor a reality built out of words and feelings, not works and facts.

They know it, too. They need Overstreet and other upstarts to fail: the failure legitimizes their own timid acquiescence to rules that make no sense. If other people are able to challenge rules and win, the #1 kind of person would have to ask himself serious and uncomfortable questions about what he's doing with his life.

It's easier and psychologically safer to just tear down anyone trying to do something new or different.

The thing is all technological progress depends on the #2 people winning in the end. As Feynmann talked about when diagnosing this exact phenomenon as the root cause of the Challenger disaster, mother nature (who appears to have taken on corrupting filesystems as a personal hobby of hers) does not care one bit about these word games or how nice someone is. The only thing that matters when solving a problem of technology is whether something works.

I think a lot of people in tech have entirely lost sight of this reality. I can't emphasize enough how absurd it is to state "[b]eing correct comes second to being agreeable in human-human interactions" and how dangerously anti-technology, anti-science, and-civilization, and anti-human this poison mindset is.
by b_e_n_t_o_n | 2025-08-31 07:17:29+00:00
> People are complicated

Ain't that an understatement.

I don't know if I'd reframe them as acquaintances though. I could probably be better at reaching out to them as well, for all I know they feel the same way. And I'm absolutely close with a lot of my friends that I rarely see or talk to. There is the whole meme format about "the stuff you get up to with that one friend you see once a year" or something that seems to be a common sentiment.
by grues-dinner | 2025-08-31 07:17:50+00:00
> Wouldn’t it make sense to put a big chunk of budget into creating life-extension tech?

Only if it can improve life quality rather than length alone.

Of course if we make it so you can live to 200 in the body of a 24-year-old and then suddenly drop dead, the good news is there will be no pensions to pay any more and the bad news is you will drop dead at your 180th year at work.

Which is not to say I would not take that deal. Aging is brutal and I've just about had enough already!
by simianparrot | 2025-08-31 07:18:07+00:00
That’s a naive take on what senescence is. Look it up. You can stop it, but be prepared to then have to figure out how to deal with all the side effects it prevents. And then you can fix those but be prepared to deal with those side effects. And so on. My point isn’t to stop researching and understanding and even treating, but it’s that life is a balance of tradeoffs. Looking at it as if energy is a universal currency that can be traded for every other function is a fundamental misinterpretation of everything we understand about biology.
by BrenBarn | 2025-08-31 07:18:25+00:00
> The CTO at my previous job tried Claude Code and really liked it so he said that all the devs had to use Claude Code in our work

Imagine this sentence with "Claude Code" replaced by anything else and "CTO" and "devs" replaced by more generic terms like "boss" and "employee". It's just "The boss tried Tool X and liked it so he said all the employees have to use it". It just seems to me that that is a bad way to make decisions regardless of what tool we're talking about or even what industry we're in. It's certainly possible it could make sense with a few more steps in there ("the boss tried this and liked it because X so he said we have to work on using it in way Y to accomplish Z"). But the way this is described sounds like a fire-and-forget mentality where the boss tells people to do a thing a certain way and that's the extent of his involvement, which seems stupid.
by throw310822 | 2025-08-31 07:18:54+00:00
> completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation

What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation).

> whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians

Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?
by Lvl999Noob | 2025-08-31 07:21:24+00:00
I want an option to give fake permissions. A lot of apps are pretty necessary (due to network effects). I don't want to give my contact or location data to them but they also refuse to work without it, even though they don't it for the stuff I am doing. So just let me provide fake data instead. As far as the app is concerned, it has the permissions it so wanted.
by chii | 2025-08-31 07:21:32+00:00
they are, and they're correct in that comparison. except that the laws for the pool don't require a branded fence or anything, it's just a height and gate-lock requirement.

Google is telling you to buy their particular brand of fence (which has inextricably an insane markup). And they disallow it for pool shapes they dont like and you dont have an appeals process for it.
by jalapenos | 2025-08-31 07:21:53+00:00
I think the problem with you premise is calling what you're living in a capitalist economy. You live in a mixed economy. I recommend you read the Communist Manifesto and check which items on its planned list could be reasonably claimed as actually having been done in the society you live in.

My conceptualisation of socialism is the property rights concept as presented by actual monkeys. He who possesses possesses, and he who does not is to dispossess the latter of such if his force allows. In the modern era, this is: he who can, by sufficient narcissism and IQ, explain why other's fruits of their labor and risk taking is actually "theft", such that he can indirectly participate in a competing form of (true) theft himself.
by tho2i334324 | 2025-08-31 07:22:02+00:00
> Palmer and his team had already recognized the need for better defense technology to deter a greaey't power conflict and to maintain American hegemony.

I wonder if religious "saints" (nearly all of them were terror-mongering scum) of old had such confidence. Funnily, you'll even find "post-religious" liberals and Protestants defending their supposed enemies if they were killing/raping and plundering the "heathens" (forget Xtian-saints, they'll defend Islamic rampages and skull-mountain-building exercises the likes of which would have made both Genghis & Mohammed proud.)

"St. Xavier had already recognized on the need to start a inquisition against the heathens of Goa to maintain the hegemony of Christ so that the evil heathendom could not flourish any more in the piece of land Christ had promised."

Oh yes, we're so proud running 1000x foreign bases and dropping bombs on innocent civilians around the world for "freedom" - we definitely need to preserve our "hegemony".

Serious question - are Americans really this stupid ? I can remember 5-6 wars in the past 2 decades that all turned out to be regime-change ops because they wouldn't play ball to US diktats. Atleast British colonization of the world was honest (and those that were colonized were British subjects), without all this 3-d chess propaganda non-sense.
by berkes | 2025-08-31 07:22:32+00:00
I've found that listening and asking questions is the key to accepting other people's architectural choices.

Why do they insist on A over B? What trade offs were considered? Why are these trade offs less threatening than other trade offs? What previous failures or difficulties led them to put such weight on this problem over others?

Sometimes it's just ego or stubbornness or routine¹. That can and should be dismissed IMO. Even if through these misguided reasons they choose the "right" architecture, even if the outcome turns out good, that way of working is toxic and bad for any long term project.

More often, there are good, solid reasons behind choices, though. Backed with data or science even. Things I didn't know, or see different, or have data and scientific papers for that "prove" the exact opposite. But it doesn't matter that much, as long as we all understand what we are prioritizing, what the trade offs are and how we mitigate the risks of those trade offs, it's fine.

¹ The worst, IMO, is the "we've always done it like this" trench. An ego can be softened or taken off the team. But unwillingness to learn and change, instilled in team culture is an almost guaranteed recipe for disaster
by miki123211 | 2025-08-31 07:23:14+00:00
Alternatively, require the user to decide whether they want sideloading or not at device setup time, with no ability to change this decision without wiping and starting from scratch.

It wouldn't solve the "getting infected via cracked apps" problem, but it would at least solve the "users being scammed into sideloading something they don't want" problem.
by torginus | 2025-08-31 07:23:42+00:00
I meant success in the technical sense - they managed to get the tech as good as it could realistically get - and cheap too.

But it turned out nobody cared. People who envisioned doctors using VR glasses to look at MR images in 3D, architects, modelers, mechanical engineers, who people thought would use 3D to do work turned out to not want it.

Immersive games were created, that looked and ran amazing, and afforded a never-before-seen level of interactivity, but after a few standout successes, people just moved on.

It's like Apple got to about the iPhone 4 level (where most people would agree the experience was decent), then everybody decided to go back to their old Nokias.
by seanmcdirmid | 2025-08-31 07:24:28+00:00
That’s kind of naive. Plenty of people definitely “try”, billionaires would love to live a few hundred more years. We know how aging occurs, there is degradation in DNA, telomeres shorten, and a bunch of other things. The main problem is that biological life simply can’t undergo overhauls like machines do, and we will probably just solve aging by creating successor beings that can.
by ivape | 2025-08-31 07:24:31+00:00
We act like small models are inconsistent and incoherent, but we rarely point out that it actually matches certain mental states and capacity accurately. We may need to actually see, how would a 0.5B model handle the presidency, because … it could be accurate. Having a super large model simulate these things would not be authentic.

For example, it could be truly true that a developer is roughly as good as a 1.5b model. It could really be true, in which case we’re not valuing these models for their true simulation power (yet). Might be the best interview test, you must generate hand written code that’s better than a small model (or show better judgement).

For the presidency, the current benchmark to beat is GPT2 it seems.
by konmok | 2025-08-31 07:24:49+00:00
I'm not trying to cast shade, just trying to critically analyze information.

Again, could you provide a source for that figure of 6.6% of Gazans "travelling abroad" each year? As I previously mentioned, that article does not actually support that figure at all, so I'm not sure why you insist upon it. We could obtain a better estimate for the number of distinct exiting Gazans by counting the number of exit permits issued, since those are ostensibly required to leave. The article does say 18,000 permits were issued to workers and traders in 2022, but since it doesn't include permits to other civilians, nor does it mention the expiration period for these permits, I won't commit the intellectually dishonest act of trying to turn that into a percentage.

As for your claim about Israeli persecution, that's trivially false. There are too many instances of Palestinians being shot by IDF forces to list here, but there are casualty databases freely available online. Yes, Hamas persecutes Palestinians as well, I'm not defending them.
by nextaccountic | 2025-08-31 07:25:23+00:00
> But there are also reasons why things are the way they are, and that is also not unreasonable.

It is unreasonable if it leads to users losing data. At this point, the only reasonable thing is to either completely remove support for bcachefs or give timely fixes for critical bugs, there's no middle position that won't willfully lead to users losing their data.

This used to be the default for distributions like Debian some time ago. You only supported foundational software if you were willing to also distribute critical fixes in a timely manner. If not, why bother?

For all other issues, I guess we can accept that things are the way they are.
by sublinear | 2025-08-31 07:25:44+00:00
This trend is probably the best example possible of "correlation does not imply causation".

If there is any clear reason at all, it's simply that sex is a choice. It has been completely unrelated to survival for a long while now. Yes, it is technically required at scale that someone has babies, but if no particular individual feels that pressure you should expect it to fluctuate like any other choice.

Sex would have to mean something to the individual for the numbers to go back up.
by TZubiri | 2025-08-31 07:26:07+00:00
And ironically, writing code that is maintainable on the long run and imparts a low cognitive load on successive developers is itself a cognition consuming effort.

In tradeoff engineering, maintainability over the long term is one of the many variables to optimize, and finite resources need to be alloted to it.

When I read this article I get the feeling that it's more likely that he is obsessing over maintainability over the long term while his app has a user count of zero. This malady usually comes from the perspective of being a user, one finds that the experience of writing some code is a "bad experience" so they strive to improve it or learn how to build a good "coder experience", the right answer is to understand that one is stepping into the shoes of the plumber, and it will be shitty, just gotta roll up your sleeves.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of wisdom here, but to the extent that there is, it's super derivative and well established, it's just the kind of stuff that a developer learns on their first years of software by surfing the web and learning about DRY, KISS and other folklore of software. To some extent this stuff is useful, but there's diminishing returns and at some point you have to throw shit and focus on the product instead of obsessing over the code.
by bob1029 | 2025-08-31 07:26:17+00:00
Adapting the plan at runtime seems like the most universal solution for optimizer edge cases and is already implemented in the big 3.

If you think about it, the adaptive mechanism doesn't have to be perfect to have a lot of uplift. Even coarse grain detection and starting from zero can make a huge difference if the alternative would be a query burning up the server for hours and a failed batch job.
by userbinator | 2025-08-31 07:26:20+00:00
Everyone has heard of someone who smoked and drank and lived to a hundred

It's interesting that the oldest known human to have lived (122!) smoked too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

Calment continued smoking in her elderly years until she was 117

But I'd say she is definitely an extreme genetic outlier, and would not bet that she could've lived longer had she not smoked.

(Disclaimer: non-smoker and no interest in doing so either, for other reasons.)
by ACCount37 | 2025-08-31 07:27:54+00:00
There is no physical or biological constraint that says "senescence absolutely has to happen".

In some species, it doesn't seem to happen at all. In others, it happens extremely slowly. Clearly, there are massive longevity gains left on the table - ones we'll never pick up if we keep whining about "life" being "a balance of tradeoffs".
by dotancohen | 2025-08-31 07:28:24+00:00
I did not learn writing formally, and I do not publish what I write. But I do write a lot, mostly fiction to express the things that happen to myself in a controlled environment.

I tried not writing in chapters, but I find that the chapters helped me compartmentalize different times and places and specific subjects. It may be that I'm simply used to chapters from reading other books, but no matter what the book I find that some sort of compartmentalization is beneficial and often necessary.
by hnarn | 2025-08-31 07:28:26+00:00
Of course, and it was sloppy of me to call it "out of date", that goes for all serious Linux distributions with official life cycles, the "official" packages provided follow the life cycle of the distribution. This is a very common gripe with security scanners that flag "old" versions of Apache and the like within a supported OS release, they only look at the apparent version of Apache, not what security patches have actually been installed -- because it would, of course, be completely incorrect to increment the actual version of the software for backported fixes.
by chii | 2025-08-31 07:29:34+00:00
being conned into buying gift cards means the weak link isn't with the security of the phone, but with the person's brain.

Making the device so locked down that no such con could exist also means there's no way to use the phone in ways that haven't been authorized - and as a power user, i detest that i am paying a price for the safety of those who are too stupid. I do not want to pay that price.

Conveniently, google gets to remain in a position to earn more money from being in the controlling seat.

as they say, if you trade freedom for security, you'll end up with neither.
by motorest | 2025-08-31 07:29:48+00:00
> When rules and authority start to take precedence over making sure things work, (...)

Didn't Linus lambast you for "lack of testing and collaboration before submitting patches", to the point the patches you were trying to push weren't even building?

https://ostechnix.com/linus-torvalds-expresses-frustration-w...
by BoiledCabbage | 2025-08-31 07:30:32+00:00
> Today I asked it for the name of a French restaurant that closed in my area a few years ago. The first answer was a Chinese fusion place… all the others were off too.

What's the point of this anecdote? That it's not omniscient? Nobody is should be thinking that it is.

I can ask it how many coins I have in my pocket and I bet you it won't know that either.
by InMice | 2025-08-31 07:30:41+00:00
So just a simple question - if I eat dinner at 6, then dont eat breakfast til 9 or 10 the next morning after waking up.. 6pm to 10am is 16 hours. What is so extreme about that? I do that most days without even thinking about it.

I feel no hunger after dinner, overnight or in the morning when I wake up. What exactly am I doing wrong according to this study? Im NOT hungry, therefor I dont eat. Later in the morning I feel hunger so I eat. 16-18 hours passes and I feel totally normal before my first food of the day. Do people really think this is actually an abnormally long time to not eat anything?