MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-12 16:41:02+00:00
Looks kewl, my take is that kind thing is the hardest thing to market because it's not just one thing it's a whole lot of things.

From an SEO perspective I think you want a landing page for each and every one of the tools so that somebody who is searching for a particular tool might find it. For that matter you also want a landing page for each category of tool so you should have one for "music tools".

Effective promotion is a lot more work than you might thing but involves following every angle you can, for instance you want to promote the music tools for people who are into music.

Another hint is that you should have some metadata so that if somebody shares it on social it automatically loads a good image because people only click on things on social if they have a good image (I think). Mastodon didn't find an image for it so I took a screenshot and added it here:

https://mastodon.social/@UP8/115016800036776060

When I go to a page like

https://kewltools.com/emoji-search-copy

it starts out scrolled way down to a panel of the other tools and I have to scroll up to find the tool which is undesirable because I'd really like to bookmark that one so I can always find it. When I trigger a scroll inside that tool it winds up scrolling the whole page and then I see the other tools and have to scroll back up. I think it would be better to see just that tool on that page.
by cultofmetatron | 2025-08-12 16:41:07+00:00
can't stand orms and I wrote one myself a long time ago.

BUT

ecto isnt' an orm. its a sql dsl and it take a lot of pain out of writing your sql while being very easy to map what you're writing to teh output dsl

so instead of

``` select Users.id, count(posts.id) as posts_count from Users left join Posts on Posts.user_id = Users.id group by users.id ```

you can write ``` from(u in User) |> join(:left, [u], p in Post, on: u.id = p.user_id, as: :posts) |> select([u, posts: p], %{ id: u.ud, posts_count: count(p.id) }) |> group_by([u], u.id)

```

the |> you see here is a pipe operator. I've effectively decomposed the large block query into a series of function calls.

you can assign subqueries as separate values and join into those as well. it doesn't try to change sql. it just makes it vastly more ergonomic to write
by this_user | 2025-08-12 16:41:08+00:00
It's Game Theory problem. If you are getting more value out of the system by maintaining it in the long-run, it would make no sense to attack it and destroy its value. However, once you can extract more value in the short-term through the attack than by being a long-term participant, it becomes attractive.

With BTC's block reward continually being reduced, TX fees will have to increase in order to avoid reaching the point where large miners could become tempted to attack the network.
by jona777than | 2025-08-12 16:41:42+00:00
I initially found Gemini Pro 2.5 to work well for coding. Over time, I found Claude to be more consistently productive. Gemini Pro 2.5 became my go-to for use cases benefitting from larger context windows. Claude seemed to be the safer daily driver (if I needed to get something done.)

All that being said, Gemini has been consistently dependable when I had asks that involved large amounts of code and data. Claude and the OpenAI models struggled with some tasks that Gemini responsively satisfied seemingly without "breaking a sweat."

Lately, it's been GPT-5 for brainstorming/planning, Claude for hammering out some code, Gemini when there is huge data/code requirements. I'm curious if the widened Sonnet 4 context window will change things.
by andrewla | 2025-08-12 16:41:56+00:00
The article links to a previous article discussing methodology for this. The prompting is pretty extensive.

It is difficult here to separate out how much of this could be fixed or improved by better prompting. A better baseline might be to just give the LLM direct access to the text adventure, so that everything the LLM replies is given to the game directly. I suspect that the LLMs would do poorly on this task, but would undoubtedly improve over time and generations.

EDIT: Just started playing 9:05 with GPT-4 with no prompting and it did quite poorly; kept trying to explain to me what was going on with the ever more complex errors it would get. Put in a one line "You are playing a text adventure game" and off it went -- it took a shower and got dressed and drove to work.
by nis0s | 2025-08-12 16:42:07+00:00
An important and insightful study, but I’d caution against thinking that building pro-social aspects in language models is a damaging or useless endeavor. Just speaking from experience, people who give good advice or commentary can balance between being blunt and soft, like parents or advisors or mentors. Maybe language models need to learn about the concept of tough love.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-08-12 16:42:53+00:00
By default, you should be allowed to say that the president is a lizard person, and show your "irrefutable evidence". On national news? Only if you can persuade a national news show that they should (or unless you own a national network).

But if you don't own them, they're not going to show your "proof" (except perhaps as comedy), because they have a reputation they need to maintain. And if you own them, they're still not going to, because they'd lose reputation (and therefore market share), and they'd get sued for slander and lose.

That leaves you showing your "proof" to whoever you can persuade to listen, without going on national news. I'm not sure I see the problem with that.
by ryandrake | 2025-08-12 16:43:25+00:00
Yea, one of the main attributes that define poker is that the chips are worth something (either cash value, or as potential equity in a tournament cash-out).

It's hard to articulate how this happens, but when the chips have no value, the game plays totally different, and just isn't poker anymore. There's no point to bluffing, or aggressively raising, or agonizing over whether you should fold your two pair, if a 100 chip bet has the same zero value as a 1000 chip bet. It just ends up playing like a boring, no stakes "guess the number I'm thinking" game.
by numpad0 | 2025-08-12 16:43:55+00:00
It's also a key enabler to CJK typing on computers. CJK scripts never map to keyboards well, so instead of actually typing, approximate representations are typed in and regularized into written forms using similar technologies as spell checkers. It's a neat thing if you speak one of the languages, sort of interesting that a similar tool haven't been integrated into English keyboards.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-12 16:44:10+00:00
I'd say Word, even the web version is definitely more capable than Google Docs. I don't know that most people need it. I will say that interactive mode in gdocs is slightly better. I also like Outlook slightly better, though I do wish they'd slim it down a bit, it feels bloated.

My last decade has been a mix, some o365, some GDocs. I do wish there was something opened that was nearly as good as Visio myself, rather than renting it as an add-on. diagrams.net/draw.io is pretty good for some things, but Visio has a lot of features that aren't even close. I haven't tried the web version of Visio lately, last I had it was only halfway decent for read-only, but apparently most features now work. So next time I need it in mac/linux it should be an option.
by Aerbil313 | 2025-08-12 16:44:36+00:00
> "The biggest killer for any task tracker I find is an accumulating backlog of items that seem too important to quit but too intractable to make progress on."

I worked in this space for some time. Solving the backlog problem is the holy grail of To-Do systems. I am convinced it is a solvable problem.

The reason there are a bajillion To-Do apps and strategies right now is because a working UX for a digital task-keeping system is still not figured out. To simply put it, no To-Do app 'works' right now. Many of them work well enough for some people to depend on them to some extent.

One of the major reasons for failure is the backlog problem. It's surprisingly difficult, it's at the crossroads of human psychology and the varying real life tasks and responsibilities of real people. Real world is messy.

You'll see To-Do apps "work" out-of-the-box for most people and be hugely beneficial when:

- You see research papers comparing different strategies for To-Do task scheduling, cognitive load of different UI views, etc.

- Popular To-Do apps converge. They'll likely look nothing like the scheduled-checklist style apps of today.

- People start depending on them in managing most areas of their life.

Right now the To-Do app industry is competing on who has the shiniest UI. Very few players are even acknowledging the backlog problem.

Personally, I tried everything under the sun from using a single .txt file to custom-designed software. I have ADHD. Right now the thing that works best is a physical Bullet Journal. It works because of the friction of paper and pen. It mostly solves the accumulating backlog problem.
by gpderetta | 2025-08-12 16:44:41+00:00
Do you fully agree? I finally went and read n3005.pdf. The important item there is that a cast to integer exposes the pointer and now the compiler must be conservative and assume that the pointed object might be changed via non trackable pointers. This seems quite a reasonable compromise to make existing code work without affecting the vast majority of objects whose address is never cast to an integer. But ncruces wants defined semantics for arbitrary forged pointers.
by frmrghr | 2025-08-12 16:44:44+00:00
Former githubber anon posting a non main acct

You all should be running a small private git

Most teams could get buy with something like a tiny instance with snapshots every commit

AWS has too much skin in the game to be as unreliable as they used to be.

There's zero reason for a startup to use all these services anymore. The only reason they ever existed was big government manipulation of the labor market through ZIRP

It's far more set n forget to self host git than github will be
by GainTrains | 2025-08-12 16:45:00+00:00
Confession found on Shadowspeak

A friend gave me their Netflix password years ago. When they canceled their account, I thought I was done but somehow, my profile still works. The same happened with Spotify after a family plan glitch. Now, I get premium streaming on multiple platforms without paying for any of them. I know it’s probably a billing or account error, but I’m not about to call customer support and ruin it for myself. It’s been over a year, and I’m starting to wonder if this is just my version of winning the lottery.
by Gormo | 2025-08-12 16:45:05+00:00
One of the biggest problems with a lot of the modern theory of democracy is that it sees democratic mechanisms as being not just necessary but sufficient to justify any action undertaken by the state.

Another major problem is the lack of clear bounding principles to distinguish public questions from private ones (or universal public questions from public questions particular to a localized context).

Together these problems result in political processes that (a) treats every question as global problem affecting society an undifferentiated mass, and (b) uses majoritarianism applied to arbitrary, large-scale aggregations of people as means of answering those questions.

This leads to concepts like "one man, one vote" implying that everyone should have an equal say on every question regardless of the stake any given individual might have in the outcome of that question.

And that, in turn, leads to the dominant influence on every question -- in either mode of democracy Rothbard refers to -- being not the people who face the greatest impact from the answer, nor the people who understand its details the best, but rather vast numbers of people who really have no basis for any meaningful opinions in the first place.

Every question comes down to opposing parties trying to win over uninformed, disinterested voters through spurious arguments and vague appeals to emotion. Public choice theory hits the nail on the head here, and this is why the policy equilibrium in every modern political state is a dysfunctional mess of special-interest causes advanced at everyone else's expense.

Democracy is necessary, but not sufficient. And I think the particular genius of the American approach has been to embed democracy within a constitutional framework that attempts to define clear lines regarding what is a public question open to political answers and what is not. The more we erode that framework, the more the reliability of our institutions will fray.
by abeppu | 2025-08-12 16:45:54+00:00
I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere.

But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues.

https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
by bee_rider | 2025-08-12 16:45:56+00:00
These user activated dictionaries tend to be excellent (even in vim, a pretty barebones system, I tend to get fantastic guesses from the machine).

Actually, come to think of it, the problem must be a bit easier than on smartphones, right? Real keyboard input is very precise. Smartphone keyboards already guess what word you were trying to spell, so they are influencing the typos in the direction of likely words… cannibalizing the very guess list that the dictionary uses!
by xbmcuser | 2025-08-12 16:46:40+00:00
Where I come from, there is no need to route cases. I used to believe in Western justice systems, but as I've grown older, I've come to realize that much of the corruption money from Asia, Africa, and South America is parked in these same Western countries. Many of the corrupt officials who have fled their home countries are now living in these same Western countries, and in many cases, their families have been granted citizenship. The behavior of the ruling elite in Western countries tells me all I need to know about their justice systems. It seems that a large portion of the population has willingly, maybe unknowingly, put on blinders to their own countries' systems and behaviors.
by sdesol | 2025-08-12 16:46:52+00:00
> I really desperately need LLMs to maintain extremely effective context

I actually built this. I'm still not ready to say "use the tool yet" but you can learn more about it at https://github.com/gitsense/chat.

The demo link is not up yet as I need to finalize an admin tool but you should be able to follow the npm instructions to play around with.

The basic idea is, you should be able to load your entire repo or repos and use the context builder to help you refine it. Or you can can create custom analyzers that you can do 'AI Assisted' searches with like execute `!ask find all frontend code that does [this]` and the because the analyzer knows how to extract the correct metadata to support that query, you'll be able to easily build the context using it.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-08-12 16:47:01+00:00
An application domain where C++ is notably better is when the ownership and lifetimes of objects are not knowable at compile-time, only being resolvable at runtime. High-performance database kernels are a canonical example of code where this tends to be common.

Beyond that, recent C++ versions have much more expressive metaprogramming capability. The ability to do extensive codegen and code verification within C++ at compile-time reduces lines of code and increases safety in a significant way.
by imtringued | 2025-08-12 16:47:19+00:00
>Digital verification exclusively on-device doesn't work because addons and alternative applications make it possible to bypass those checks. There's no credible reason to trust local software to protect the kids.

Then nothing will protect the kids.

I don't mean this tongue in cheek or implying that no protection should exist. I literally mean what I wrote. Children can always acquire hardware that will let them bypass any controls.

What pisses me off the most is people like you who pretend to care about things they don't care about. If only perfect solutions are acceptable, but perfect solutions don't exist, but good enough solutions are insufficient because of some theoretical bypass, then you essentially argue for no protection at all, but you do this under the pretense of advocating for protection. That is your stance, not mine.

Children who actively seek out blocked content are simply unstoppable. There is nothing you can do about that, so instead of going on and on about your nirvana fallacy, you should be happy with protecting the children who aren't adversaries to your protection scheme. After all, protecting children is good, so protecting millions of children should be better than protecting no children. The fact that there is a hypothetical fascist police state in which it is possible to protect every single child on the planet through world domination (in the name of protecting children) should play no role in making that decision.
by sneak | 2025-08-12 16:48:02+00:00
Apple did something similar in 2015:

CVE-2015-3774

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-3774

https://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2015/Aug/...

You had to three-finger press to trigger it, though. Similarly, it used unencrypted HTTP. I reported it and it was fixed to use TLS.

The dev defending this unencrypted behavior is really wild, though.
by hnlmorg | 2025-08-12 16:48:06+00:00
> Anything else I'm not going to ask my phone, I'm going to take it out and head to Google.

But my while point was there’s a plethora of different reasons why “heading to Google” isn’t always practical. Like when you’re driving. When you’re cooking. Even when you’re just playing with the kids, a question gets asked, and you don’t want to spoil the momentum of the play by staining at an LCD screen for 2 minutes.

Siri really damn convenient for those occasions when you want an action performed but don’t want the distraction of performing that action.

In fact, I’d go further and say that’s the biggest selling point for current gen consumer AI.

> Maybe they're "behind" (although, this tech is still so early I don't think anyone is truly behind)

The tech is still early but Siri are most definitely behind.

It’s not even remotely close to the capabilities of even open source models, let alone the commercial ones.

And the fact that they had to bolt on ChatGPT in such an ad hoc way speaks volumes about how Apple realise themselves just how far behind Siri has gotten.

I think you’re right that it’s not their long term plan. But that doesn’t change that it presently feels like a very ugly kludge.
by pxc | 2025-08-12 16:48:21+00:00
Dictionaries are small! It's insane to think that a dictionary requires network access. If it did, why would I install it locally??

> Today, an application being locally installed and works with offline data is like a a statement of quaint chivalry, promulgated by a few remaining Don Quixotes of computing.

But a dictionary package has no valid reason to be online.
by tracker1 | 2025-08-12 16:48:38+00:00
Not so much.. I mean if Word Perfect and Lotus 123 had a merger, then they would still be competitive as neither was really better than the MS Office counterparts, but as a combo they would have had more entrenchment to work from.

IBM buying Lotus and not Word Perfect was probably a mistake, had they really wanted to take it seriously... but they seemed more interested in Lotus Notes (think Outlook+Access in a self-hosted cloud environment), it was imho nasty af.
by anonz4FWNqnX | 2025-08-12 16:48:54+00:00
I've had similar experiences. I've gone back and forth between running models locally and using the commercial models. The local models can be incredibly useful (gemma, qwen), but they need more patience and work to get them to work.

One advantage to running locally[1] is that you can set the context length manually and see how well the llm uses it. I don't have an exact experience to relay, but it's not unusual for models to be allow longer contexts, but ignore that context.

Just making the context big doesn't mean the LLM is going to use it well.

[1] I've using lm studio on both a macbook air and a macbook pro. Even a macbook air with 16G can run pretty decent models.
by jdeibele | 2025-08-12 16:49:10+00:00
From the first paragraph:

"It was designed, built, and flown successfully by a team of just 50 people—compared to the hundreds or even thousands that would have been employed by a traditional big aerospace company. And we did this with roughly a tenth of the budget that would traditionally be required. People have marveled at how our small team of just 50 people at Boom designed, built, and successfully flew the XB-1, the world’s first independently developed supersonic jet. And we did this with about a tenth the capital as any other supersonic program."

Is the repetition a sign of AI writing the article?
by jancsika | 2025-08-12 16:49:22+00:00
> And what can show up is that some people aren't actually smart enough to form very good conclusions once they start thinking for themselves.

It's mostly just people who aren't very experienced talking about and dealing honestly with their emotions, no?

I mean, suppose someone is busy achieving and, at the same time, proficient in balancing work with emotional life, dealing head-on with interpersonal conflicts, facing change, feeling and acknowledging hurt, knowing their emotional hangups, perhaps seeing a therapist, perhaps even occasionally putting personal needs ahead of career... :)

Tell that person they can get a marginal (or even substantial) improvement from some rationalist cult practice. Their first question is going to be, "What's the catch?" Because at the very least they'll suspect that adjusting their work/life balance will bring a sizeable amount of stress and consequent decrease in their emotional well-being. And if the pitch is that this rationalist practice works equally well at improving emotional well-being, that smells to them. They already know they didn't logic themselves into their current set of emotional issues, and they are highly unlikely to logic themselves out of them. So there's not much value here to offset the creepy vibes of the pitch. (And again-- being in touch with your emotions means quicker and deeper awareness of creepy vibes!)

Now, take a person whose unexplored emotional well-being tacitly depends on achievement. Even a marginal improvement in achievement could bring perceptible positive changes in their holistic selves! And you can step through a well-specified, logical process to achieve change? Sign HN up!