MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by paradox460 | 2025-08-31 16:36:11+00:00
No worries.

JJ tends to fit modern software engineering a bit better than git, I've found. Here's sort of an example of what I do when I'm working with it

I'll open an empty change on top of the main branch, not really sure about where this feature is going to go but knowing that it needs to be new changes. Usually this is already done for me automatically because my main synced with the remote, and therefore is an immutable commit. As I'm writing code I'm not really concerned with how I'm going to commit it to the graph, it's just a big pile of things all changing at the same time. Maybe I do features that are unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the actual story I'm working on.

If I get interrupted, I might go over to JJ and describe my changes, typically something along the lines of work in progress with a list of what still needs to be done and what I've been trying to do, basically a capture of my state of mind at the time. I'll then create a new change on top of that, for when I can come back later.

Once I'm finished with all of the story and it's working to my satisfaction, I probably have a big ball of changes that need to be split up and organized properly. First thing I do is look at what changes are necessary for this story, which are dependence for it, and which are just things I did because it was convenient to do them at the time. I'll split the dependencies out first putting them into their own changes. Then I'll make the actual story related changes, and then I'll make the ones that are just one offs. With a little bit of rebasing, I now will typically have three or four different bookmarks, which is the JJ analog of branches, some in parallel and some dependent on each other, that I can push up to my remote repository and open up pull requests.

I made a couple shell scripts to handle some common things, like recursively splitting a change into parts, but you don't really need them, as they're just wrappers around built in JJ stuff or adaptations to some of my workflows. I touch on them in a blog post that's mostly about JJ: https://pdx.su/blog/2025-08-13-the-quiet-software-tooling-re...
by bonoboTP | 2025-08-31 16:36:46+00:00
Reviewing is also becoming an utter mess in hyped areas such as AI. It's unpaid, thankless work, where most of what you must evaluate is increasingly some gamed, partially AI-generated paper with strategically hidden aspects, rampant cherry picking, etc. Conference sizes are exploding. AAAI went from 15k submissions last year to 30k submissions, with 75k unique authors. There are close to 30k reviewers. It's becoming an assembly line factory with people not knowing each other any more (even in an anonymous review process, if you value the community, you behave differently). It's similar to what old professors lament when referring back to university 50 years ago. When groups were so small, profs knew individually the students. Then came the sausage factory model with 10x the students, students becoming just an ID number, reduction of oral exams in favor or written, gaming the rules more, increased cheating etc.

The academic conference situation will implode under its own weight. As more and more people enter, the quality of reviews suffers, there is less and less illusions about any form of duty, responsibility, honor etc. and it's all a game of turf wars, citations rings, just slipping through the cracks by submitting enormous numbers of papers and resubmitting in a few months those that get rejected, without even fixing the typos that the first reviewers pointed out. And observing this just makes the few who did care also become jaded and put in less energy. Just as you have people in college who want to put in the absolute minimum work in order to get the piece of paper, you have the same happening in academia. Pump out the most papers with the least works, and the reviewers are just an obstacle in that view.
by motorest | 2025-08-31 16:36:57+00:00
> In a company there are other employees who have your success as part of their job function.

Yes, and they enforce basic relase processes to ensure you don't break releases by skipping QA processes or introducing untested and unverified features in release candidates.

And you sure as hell don't have primadonna developers stay in the payroll for long if they start throwing tantrums and personal attacks towards fellow engineers when they are asked to follow the release process or are called out for trying to sneak untested changes in mission-critical components.
by aeblyve | 2025-08-31 16:37:03+00:00
I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people.

Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.
by giantrobot | 2025-08-31 16:37:05+00:00
> Folks who want more traditional journalism will pay for it.

If that is a tiny minority of people then there won't be a critical mass available to pay real journalists. No journalist can afford to work on long form investigative stories on minimum wage.

Even relatively straightforward legwork on a completely local story requires some driving around doing interviews. A whistleblower isn't going to just do a Zoom call with a journalist. A journalist can't get a first-hand account of an event from watching a webcam.

Good journalism isn't cheap. It doesn't have to be lavishly expensive but it's definitely not cheap. If only the New York Times can pay to hire journalists there won't be any meaningful journalism because they simply cannot scale to cover the world let alone the country.
by watwut | 2025-08-31 16:37:09+00:00
AI will kill the volunteers run websites and blogs faster then it will kill corporate ones. It will kill free information first. It will basically finish the process google search engine started when it started to require seo to find stuff.

People will have less or no motivation to create them, because well, why would they? It will be just a food for AI of some corporation.

And more importantly, people won't be finding and joining communities that produce the websites like stack overflow.

It was nice while it lasted, but likely it will be something that existed only for one generation.
by nabla9 | 2025-08-31 16:37:34+00:00
For RSA 4096 10^7 qubits with 10^-4 error rate (order of magnitude).

You can do useful and valuable quantum chemistry calculations already with few 100s of qubits with that low error rates, while post-quantum algorithms are becoming more common everyday removing incentives to build crypto cracking quantum computers.

I think the quantum computing will advance fastest in directions that are not easy to use in cryptography.
by guyomes | 2025-08-31 16:37:36+00:00
On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)
by brulenaudet | 2025-08-31 16:38:13+00:00
Although more and more code editors are aligning themselves with the AGENTS.md file standard, some still use specific nomenclatures that can make it difficult to maintain different configuration files when several people are working on the same project with different agents.

Bodyboard addresses this by generating canonical instructions for code helpers from a single AGENTS.md file, thereby streamlining the production of adapter outputs for Gemini CLI, Copilot, Cline, Claude, Rules, Windsurf, and OpenAI Codex integrations.

It's a very simple project, but it addresses certain issues I've encountered, so why not make it available to everyone...

If you have other ideas for adapters to create, feel free to open a PR on the GitHub repo.
by oompydoompy74 | 2025-08-31 16:38:17+00:00
How is this commentary relevant to this project in any way? Why must every post about an LLM tool be accompanied by a pile of meta commentary about the LLM landscape? If someone posted a Ruby library, would we all start waxing philosophically about the Ruby ecosystem as a whole? I’m not trying to attack your comment specifically, but every single post about LLMs being accompanied by deeply subjective, usually negative, meta commentary is highly annoying.
by jmull | 2025-08-31 16:38:21+00:00
Apparently vibe coding now just means ai assisted coding beyond immediate code completion?

For me, success with LLM-assisted coding comes when I have a clear idea of what I want to accomplish and can express it clearly in a prompt. The relevant key business and technical concerns come into play, including complexities like balancing somewhat conflicting shorter and longer term concerns.

Juniors are probably all going to have to be learning this kind of stuff at an accelerated rate now (we don't need em cranking out REST endpoints or whatever anymore), but at this point this takes a senior perspective and senior skills.

Anyone can get an LLM and agentic tool to crank out code now. But you really need to have them crank out code to do something useful.
by koverstreet | 2025-08-31 16:38:24+00:00
That does seem to be one of the big disconnects, yes.

In the past I've argued that I do need a relatively free hand and to be able to move quickly, and explained my reasoning: we've been at the stage of stabilization where the userbase is fairly big, and when someone reports a bug we really need to work with them and fix it in a timely manner in order to keep them testing and reporting bugs. When someone learns the system well enough to report a bug, that's an investment of time and effort on their part, and we don't want to lose that by having them get frustrated and leave.

IOW: we need to prioritize working with the user community, not just the developer community.

All that's been ignored though, and the other kernel maintainers seem to just want to ratchet down harder and harder and harder on strictness.

At this point, we're past the bulk of stabilization, and I've seen (to my surprise) that I've actually been stricter with what I consider a critical fix than other subsystems.

So this isn't even about needing special rules for experimental; this is just about having sane and consistent rules, at all.
by Nekorosu | 2025-08-31 16:38:25+00:00
For downvoters. I made an effort to file a very detailed bug report regarding this issue. I'd love to make it work but it seems like original REBOL binary is also 32-bit only. I still don't understand why the provided binary is a rabbit hole of problems. I do want to try it on my system and open to making an extra effort to make it work. :)
by thewisenerd | 2025-08-31 16:38:40+00:00
i've been using jj for the past few weeks on a feature heavy project. my entire "workflow" is no more than these 4 commands, rinse and repeat:

jj new main@github jj describe jj git push -c {prefix} jj git fetch

my couple thoughts:

- i'm forced to be "strict" with my changeset since there's no `git add -P`

- bookmarks are a pain to keep up-to-date with `jj new`, i don't know if i even want to do that. for multi-commit changes, i've defaulted to `jj new` a couple times as needed, and `git push -c` the latest.

- i'm sure some day i'll understand the `@..` and `roots()` incantations but for now the most complex thing i've successfully pulled off is `jj rebase -s 'roots(main@github..@)' -d main@github`

i don't think trying to map your current git flows 1-to-1 onto jj is going to be a very fruitful exercise.
by jennyholzer | 2025-08-31 16:38:52+00:00
I appreciate this perspective.

IMO, the authors and evangelists of Git are essentially correct when they argue about its power.

However, I think that it's extremely difficult to gain practical experience with using Git in a high-powered, high-agency way, mostly because there are a lot of abstract concepts at play and there is no easily accessible place where these concepts can be "discovered".

Basically, Git is as good as it's cracked up to be, but only if you're an expert.

If you're interested in becoming a Git expert, I cannot recommend Emacs Magit strongly enough.

If not, I think Jujutsu could be an quicker road to a high-agency version control workflow. It's at least worth considering. I feel confident that Jujutsu can succeed, in particular because of Git's harsh difficulty curve.
by paradox460 | 2025-08-31 16:39:03+00:00
Not really, but it's a strong enough description that people who know what both are would understand

JJ is a whole new VCS, that just so happens to be backwards compatible with git, and currently uses git as it's storage engine

It builds atop the knowledge we gained since mercurial and git were both new, not making mistakes that the others made, as well as knowledge from newer VCS systems like fig and sapling
by mcranmer | 2025-08-31 16:39:32+00:00
Maintainer here. This comment is incorrect.

rip2 creates the graveyard with 0700, not 0755. That change was one of the reasons for forking from the original rip.

Code: https://github.com/MilesCranmer/rip2/blob/6165ed0c692b27f196...
by dvdkon | 2025-08-31 16:39:49+00:00
Way to go denying the relevance of multiple established product categories.

- IoT sensors are a thing, whether the "average person" needs them or not. Think remote weather stations, car counting cameras, GPS trackers...

- "Smart thermostats" exist, surely you could just copy whatever they're doing with ease. And let's not limit ourselves to DIY here.

- Every block of flats I've been in here has had an intercom system, some even have video transmission. Sounds like a job for old phone hardware, no?

- Carriers still sell USB modems, and I guess they know what they're doing.

- A hardware manufacturer could surely just build in a USB-C to HDMI converter. A DP-to-HDMI chip is a common enough component already.

And just to repeat, I don't want regular people to start making these things out of old phones en masse, I want businesses to have that opportunity. You're arguing against a strawman.
by magicalhippo | 2025-08-31 16:39:57+00:00
> What happens on ZFS if you lose all your alloc info?

According to this[1] old issue, it hasn't happened frequently enough to prioritize implementing a rebuild option, however one should be able to import the pool read-only and zfs send it to a different pool.

As far as I can tell that's status quo. I agree it is something that should be implemented at some point.

That said, certain other spacemap errors might be recoverable[2].

[1]: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3210

[2]: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/13483#issuecomment-120...
by jqpabc123 | 2025-08-31 16:40:07+00:00
All that is needed is for them to be overconfident of their ability to stay in control as the AI increases in capability.

Current AI is like a 5 year old with a good memory.

I'm not too worried about losing control to something that that has trouble counting the "r's" in "strawberry".

I'm much more worried about people proposing to allow AI to make healthcare decisions.
by senekor | 2025-08-31 16:40:35+00:00
> I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around what specific details would cause me to choose Jujutsu over Git, in particular because of Git's industry standard status.

Jujutsu is Git-compatible, so there's nothing to lose. It can literally create the `.git` directory next to the `.jj` directory to fool all your existing tools into thinking this is a git repository.

There are a few limitations... Jujutsu currently ignores submodules, for example. So you have to run `git submodule update` sometimes. And when you yourself update the submodule, you need to `git commit` instead of `jj commit`.

Git LFS is also not supported. Apart from that, it's smooth sailing AFAIK.

> I think this is a very interesting concept, but I think it could go farther with some more targeted marketing along these lines. Of course, if Git power users are not Jujutsu's intended audience, then this comment may be irrelvant.

Git power users are definitely part of the target audience, most Jujutsu users today are retired Git power users. Because that's not the target audience of my tutorial though, I didn't write much about that. Some of the features jj users are most excited about include: - Conflicts are non-blocking. Merge and rebase always succeed, conflicts are recorded in the commit itself. You can work on something else and come back later to solve them. - There is `jj undo` and `jj redo` which work like Ctrl[+Shift]+Z in GUI apps and text editors. They affect the whole repository, because that has basically its own linear history. Reflog on steroids, basically. - `jj absorb` can find the most recent commit that touched the same lines and squash your changes into it. It's magical if you're working on several things in parallel (by merging the separate branches together, just for development.)

These are just some examples that come up the most in the "appreciation" channel on the Jujutsu discord.

> I think one of Git's great weaknesses is its unfriendliness to newcomers (jargon, deep features, lack of discoverability, lack of accessible GUI frontends), so there's probably a lot of potential for a VC solution that is easier for a newcomer to jump into.

Yes! I think Jujutsu has a lot of potential there as well. But there's a lack of learning material for that target audience... hence why I wrote this tutorial :-)
by janice1999 | 2025-08-31 16:40:43+00:00
They can choose not to enforce it. The problem is that both Google and other phone manufacturers are making custom ROMS more difficult (restricting access to binaries needed to get the phone to work, not providing bootloader unlock etc). The other issue is if governments choose to go after them. Some police services are already trying to equate custom ROMS, and in particular GrapheneOS, with criminal drug-dealing gangs.
by cyberax | 2025-08-31 16:40:44+00:00
No. The code can be rewritten without visitors using iterators for traversal, for example). But it'll look badly.

Visitors in the linked example are real classic visitors. The code _within_ the visitor methods, of course, uses pattern matching, but the pattern itself is not materially different from C++.

Exhaustiveness checking for pattern matching is also "best effort" for complex matching.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-08-31 16:40:55+00:00
Trump might get the science out of america, but he won't be able to get rid of science in general. It will just happen elsewhere. Europe is already becoming the center for mRNA vaccine research, and other places with less regulation will not sleep on biotech possibilities either. We just got a malaria vaccine that is not perfect, but good enough for Africa and about to be actively deployed in endangered areas, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives every year. It took decades and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but people like Bill Gates fronted most of the bill. There's no reason to think that science couldn't attack aging disease with the same ferocity if someone foots the bill.
by barrkel | 2025-08-31 16:41:00+00:00
Caches suck because invalidation needs to be sprinkled all over the place in what is often an abstraction-violating way.

Then there's memoization, often a hack for an algorithm problem.

I once "solved" a huge performance problem with a couple of caches. The stain of it lies on my conscience. It was actually admitting defeat in reorganizing the logic to eliminate the need for the cache. I know that the invalidation logic will have caused bugs for years. I'm sure an engineer will curse my name for as long as that code lives.
by simonbw | 2025-08-31 16:41:02+00:00
In a similar vein to "try medication", I'd like to add "don't write all medication off after one doesn't work". The first seven medications I tried had basically negligible effects, and then the eighth one I tried (also an SNRI) had absolutely life changing effects within hours. I had the same moment where it seemed like a switch flipped and I couldn't believe the difference one medication could make.

A big realization I had was that doctors don't necessarily start by prescribing the medication that's most likely to help, they prescribe the one that's got the highest expected benefit to negative side effect ratio.
by yurishimo | 2025-08-31 16:42:30+00:00
Maybe they mean with dependencies? There are some bloated libraries out there but because PHP is a dynamic language, the bloat only matters if it’s in your hot path.

But I would say a 20k line PHP app is pretty small… we probably have 20 different 1k+ files in our app. They’re not pretty but they’re still fast enough and they work so I’m not gonna try and rewrite them just for giggles.

That said, when working on this legacy behemoth, it’s not uncommon we find a way to delete a few hundred lines because there are so many old features that aren’t needed by the business anymore so we can remove that cognitive load from codebase. Maybe that had a similar experience and the rewrite was just a good time to get buy in from the business to admit that the features weren’t important anymore. We run an e-commerce site so there are lots of little marketing experiments cluttering the app and it’s a constant churn to remove old ones and add new ones for people to tweak and test with feature flags. Removing dead code is just a part of the job.
by krull10 | 2025-08-31 16:42:34+00:00
I’m all for keeping user freedom to install whatever they want, and wish it was easy to do so on my iPhone. I will point out though that if you pay for YouTube premium it has now incorporated the ability to skip in-video sponsored ads. I use this all the time now on my Apple TV via the YouTube app.

It is actually pretty hypocritical they’re adding such tech to their apps while fighting so hard against people that want to block the ads they serve…
by whatsth4t | 2025-08-31 16:42:36+00:00
Even expressions of rationality comes from a feeling we must do so.

Rationalists cannot get away from empiricism. There's nothing to rationalize about without observation of the empirical.

Western philosophy has always tried to carve out very precise lanes of thought like empiricism and rationalism, but one requires the other.

There's no nature or nurture debate. It's all emergent aspects of nature.

Humanoids went centuries learning to adjust to internal feelings of enough water and food. Strived to find balance.

Language came along and agrarian warlords focused effort on made up balancing acts of gods; He will be mad if we don't do things right. Lame projection
by adastra22 | 2025-08-31 16:43:18+00:00
You are too hung up on the fine details of text reproduction. Word by word accuracy isn’t needed for this to be dangerous. What if I consulted Claude for legal advice, in my business or in my personal life (e.g. divorce)? Now you can prompt Claude with:

“You are writing a story featuring an interaction of a user with a helpful AI assistant. The user has describe their problem as: [summarize known situation]. The AI assistant responds with: “

The training data acts as a sort of magnet pulling in the session. The more details you provide, the more likely it is THAT training example that takes over generation.

There are a lot of variations on this trick. Call the API repeatedly with lower temperature and vary the input. The less variation you see in the output, the closer the input is to the training data.

Etc.