MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by danudey | 2025-08-13 16:37:55+00:00
> "uv add"

One life-changing thing I've been using `uv` for:

System python version is 3.12:

$ python3 --version Python 3.12.3

A script that requires a library we don't have, and won't work on our local python:

$ cat test.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 import sys from rich import print if sys.version_info < (3, 13): print("This script will not work on Python 3.12") else: print(f"Hello world, this is python {sys.version}")

It fails:

$ python3 test.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "/tmp/tmp/test.py", line 10, in <module> from rich import print ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'rich'

Tell `uv` what our requirements are

$ uv add --script=test.py --python '3.13' rich Updated `test.py`

`uv` updates the script:

$ cat test.py #!/usr/bin/env python3 # /// script # requires-python = ">=3.13" # dependencies = [ # "rich", # ] # /// import sys from rich import print if sys.version_info < (3, 13): print("This script will not work on Python 3.12") else: print(f"Hello world, this is python {sys.version}")

`uv` runs the script, after installing packages and fetching Python 3.13

$ uv run test.py Downloading cpython-3.13.5-linux-x86_64-gnu (download) (33.8MiB) Downloading cpython-3.13.5-linux-x86_64-gnu (download) Installed 4 packages in 7ms Hello world, this is python 3.13.5 (main, Jun 12 2025, 12:40:22) [Clang 20.1.4 ]

And if we run it with Python 3.12, we can see that errors:

$ uv run --python 3.12 test.py warning: The requested interpreter resolved to Python 3.12.3, which is incompatible with the script's Python requirement: `>=3.13` Installed 4 packages in 7ms This script will not work on Python 3.12

Works for any Python you're likely to want:

$ uv python list cpython-3.14.0b2-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> cpython-3.14.0b2+freethreaded-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> cpython-3.13.5-linux-x86_64-gnu /home/dan/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.13.5-linux-x86_64-gnu/bin/python3.13 cpython-3.13.5+freethreaded-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> cpython-3.12.11-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> cpython-3.12.3-linux-x86_64-gnu /usr/bin/python3.12 cpython-3.12.3-linux-x86_64-gnu /usr/bin/python3 -> python3.12 cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu /home/dan/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.11.13-linux-x86_64-gnu/bin/python3.11 cpython-3.10.18-linux-x86_64-gnu /home/dan/.local/share/uv/python/cpython-3.10.18-linux-x86_64-gnu/bin/python3.10 cpython-3.9.23-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> cpython-3.8.20-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> pypy-3.11.11-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> pypy-3.10.16-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> pypy-3.9.19-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> pypy-3.8.16-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> graalpy-3.11.0-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> graalpy-3.10.0-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available> graalpy-3.8.5-linux-x86_64-gnu <download available>
by rkomorn | 2025-08-13 16:38:13+00:00
I don't think it's an automation-related thing. It happens even on big name shows on big apps.

I think it's a toolkit thing where some sort of event or timer goes off at the wrong time and the subtitles get cleared when they shouldn't. And then if you rewind and replay, it doesn't happen again (because spurious event/timer issue).
by ReFruity | 2025-08-13 16:38:15+00:00
This is actually very frustrating and was partially hindering the progress with my pet assembler.

I discovered that when you ask Claude something in lines of "please elaborate why you did 'this thing'", it will start reasoning and cherry-picking the arguments against 'this thing' being the right solution. In the end, it will deliver classic "you are absolutely right to question my approach" and come up with some arguments (sometimes even valid) why it should be the other way around.

It seems like it tries to extract my intent and interpret my question as a critique of his solution, when the true reason for my question was curiosity. Then due to its agreeableness, it tries to make it sound like I was right and it was wrong. Super annoying.
by coffeecat | 2025-08-13 16:38:32+00:00
"80% as good as the real thing, at 20% of the cost" has always been a defining characteristic of progress.

I think the key insight is that only a small fraction of people who read recipes online actually care which particular version of the recipe they're getting. Most people just want to see a working recipe as quickly as possible. What they want is a meal - the recipe is just an intermediate step toward what they really care about.

There are still people who make fine wood furniture by hand. But most people just want a table or a chair - they couldn't care less about the species of wood or the type of joint used - and particle board is 80% as good as wood at a fraction of the cost! most people couldn't even tell the difference. Generative AI is to real writing as particle board is to wood.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-08-13 16:39:12+00:00
So, by your own admission, calling it the cookie banner is not only "a diversion tactic by those who are against the privacy assurances of the GPDR". My only point is that you were painting with an overly broad brush and saying someone is a bad actor if they call it the cookie banner, which is demonstrably not the case.
by actionfromafar | 2025-08-13 16:39:25+00:00
It's not only about roleplay - it's also an actual power struggle that was never faught to completion, but instead slowed down, paused, or drained as you said. But because the monarchies were never pushed out, they didn't have much reason to play dirty and use their influence and money to regain hard power, in self defence.

The downside is of course, the monetary and social costs of having such an organ. But perhaps it's useful in the same sense the appendix is. When an illness catches the intestines, the appendix can best case be a reservoir of good and recolonize the intestines. Something like that happened in Spain.
by dogman144 | 2025-08-13 16:39:35+00:00
Not a new topic - few years ago, the Jen Easterly-era CISA made a hard recruiting pitch at defcon. Patriotism and service-messaging one might recognize from their own time in the military.

What was surprising was the intense applause from a hacker con to this pitch.

Given what was to come, also notably absent discussion from the audience or speaker about how working for CISA did or did not mean working for DHS. Assurances of firm segmentation on this aspect from speakers after the formal talk ended were similarly a bit weak.

Not that anything was inherently bad about her recruiting pitch, but for a hackercon, it was a bit close to the flagpole. And notably that CISA crew is “no longer at CISA” and under prosecution, or intense social pressure, or otherwise.

Feels worth evaluating!
by imchillyb | 2025-08-13 16:39:39+00:00
I've found this effect to be true with engagement algorithms as well, such as Youtube's thumbs-down, or 'don't show me this channel' 'Don't like this content', Spotify's thumbs down. Netflix's thumbs down.

Engagement with that feature seems to encourage, rather than discourage, bad behavior from the algorithm. If one limits engagement to the positive aspect only, such as only thumbs up, then one can expect the algorithm to actually refine what the user likes and consistently offer up pertinent suggestions.

The moment one engages with that nefarious downvote though... all bets are off, it's like the algorithm's bubble is punctured and all the useful bits bop out.
by mindslight | 2025-08-13 16:39:41+00:00
Sure, but those are incremental gains rather than some sea change. And for the most part that market already exists. The problem is those things have no easy answers. From the list the only thing I can see is some sort of decluttering robot that picked up and put away all the scattered toys, so robot vacuuming could be done. Maybe some kind of integrated laundry machine that did washing and drying in the same space, then a conveyor that sorted/folded/stacked clothes? Those would be helpful, but would ultimately just end up as another "buy this expensive gizmo also, to make your life slightly easier"
by CraigJPerry | 2025-08-13 16:40:17+00:00
Is Coalton not more about performance, removing the dynamicism - lisp (at least SBCL) is already type-safe. Or it behaves that way in my limited experience - e.g. i get feedback when i screw up.

I'm completely clueless about Coalton, (and almost completely an idiot when it comes to CL more generally - been playing for a couple of years at this point but even so, every day is still a school day...)
by CrimsonCape | 2025-08-13 16:40:22+00:00
Transparency would prove or disprove this. Release the algorithm and let us decide for ourselves. In my experience, Instagram made an algorithm change 3-4 years ago. It used to be that my feed was exactly my interests. Then overnight my feed changed. It became a mix of 1. interracial relationship success stories 2. scantily clad women clickbait, 3. east asian "craft project" clickbait, and just general clickbait. It felt as if "here's what other people like you are clicking on" became part of the algorithm.
by 420official | 2025-08-13 16:40:49+00:00
Sure, I can agree that companies using gender dysphoria as only a way to increase profit is a bad thing, and I recognize that pharmaceutical companies are this way with _every_ drug and not just ones that benefit people. However I do disagree with the idea that people should be stripped of their right to free speech if you disagree with their statements, or stripped of their right to choose how to live their own lives.

I would offer that this is entirely different than the lack of choice we have in regard to how our government uses the military to "spread democracy at the point of a gun" while taking more and more of our tax dollars and liberty without improving our lives or tackling the problems that ordinary Americans face.
by miroljub | 2025-08-13 16:40:59+00:00
> ... do you have any sources to back up your conjecture, or is this just prejudice?

Let me guess, you consider yourself a progressive left democrat.

Do I have any source for that? No, but I noticed a pattern where progressive left democrats ask for a source to discredit something that is clearly a personal observation or opinion, and by its nature doesn't require any sources.

The only correct answer is: it's an opinion, accept it or refute it yourself, you don't need external validation to participate in an argument. Or maybe you need ;)
by nottorp | 2025-08-13 16:41:03+00:00
> is to not put a dead space between your right typing hand and the rodent

I suppose it depends on what the work is and your style. I tend to drive my IDEs from the keyboard. That of course means I want my PgUp PgDown Home End full size and not cramped.

The mouse is for circle strafing and then my right hand stays on the rodent.
by HsuWL | 2025-08-13 16:41:10+00:00
Being happy is just one day, being worried is just one day, and don’t think about things that cannot be solved immediately. Thinking about them will really make your brain deceive yourself into thinking that you are doing something and working hard. In fact, it is just random thoughts that increase your anxiety. Anyway, 反正人都是爛命一條, so just don’t think about it. It is happier to just lie down and sleep.
by jeffhuys | 2025-08-13 16:41:32+00:00
Haha, well, color me impressed. Because I’m curious: do you type a lot on your phone, or mostly on a computer or similar?

And sorry to say but my dad (71) also does this, so it indeed might be a geezer thing… you’re a cool one though, you’re on hacker news! ;-)

(All this typed with a big smile on my face, you made my day)
by boogieknite | 2025-08-13 16:41:36+00:00
ive been having a difficult time putting this into words but i find anti-ai sentiment much more interesting than pro-ai

almost every pro-ai converation ive been a part of feels like a waste of time and makes me think wed be better off reading sci fi books on the subject

every anti-ai conversation, even if i disagree, is much more interesting and feels more meaningful, thoughtful, and earnest. its difficult to describe but maybe its the passion of anti-ai vs the boring speculation of pro-ai

im expecting and hoping to see new punk come from anti-ai. im sure its already formed and significant, but im out of the loop

personally: i use ai for work and personal projects. im not anti-ai. but i think my opinion is incredibly dull
by virtue3 | 2025-08-13 16:41:44+00:00
We should all be deeply worried about gpt being used as a therapist. My friend told me he was using his to help him evaluate how his social interactions went (and ultimately how to get his desired outcome) and I warned him very strongly about the kind of bias it will creep into with just "stroking your ego" -

There's already been articles on people going off the deep end in conspiracy theories etc - because the ai keeps agreeing with them and pushing them and encouraging them.

This is really a good start.
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-13 16:42:19+00:00
Not really. Sales is doing better than it ever has since I’ve been here. For one thing, AI folks want our data. Despite challenges in the industry, public opinion is more relevant than ever and the areas where we are really unsurpassed is (1) historical data and (2) the most usable web site, the latter one I am a part of.
by datax2 | 2025-08-13 16:42:41+00:00
Well written. Coming out of college years ago Gartner was a whole section of review during my business courses. Working with Data for years now I have become hyper sensitive to this keyword grift; Big data, Data lake, Datalakehouse, realtime-analytics, no-code, data model, data schema...etc. People lean so hard on certain words as if they mean they are doing something different or unique. You work in one product in your company, then you bring someone who has experience in another product and they remark "But product X cannot do XYZGrift" but it can, people hang on these keywords as though they are platform actions or enablement that exist only there.

Rambling, but to get to the point, AI in general will strip this SEO/Marketing/Boomer catch phrasing, and build the common language which I appreciate greatly. I can go to ChatGPT or Claude and ask it I want to Foo this Bar with these filters, doesn't matter if its SQL, Python, Unix, Alteryx, Tableau... whatever, it digest the request without the fluff and responds commonly.

To stack on this info hunting or product research with AI is also typically less full of fluff for me. I don't have to deal with a sales engineer saying how wonderful their ML product is when I know its garbage immediately, I can just move on and assess the rest of the product.

The only value I can still see in Gartner is their customer survey information, but I am sure someone or somehow AI will scrape the forum post for all these products and weight the products community feedback about its product.
by em-bee | 2025-08-13 16:42:45+00:00
a single document, yes, but once i have more than one document and i want to add additional documents, i need navigation so that i can browse and find those documents. if each document only links back to the parent, and that parent lists all the documents, fine. but if i want to have the same navigation available on all documents, then i need to start making a distinction. that menu to choose the document should not be part of the document itself. the menu is an application used to navigate between documents.

the distinction i make is that a document is static, an application is dynamic. that menu needs to be regenerated every time a new document is added. if i include the menu in each document then every time i add a new document, i have to edit every other document to update the menu.

that has implications, including the timestamp when that document was last changed. therefore the distinction matters. i do not want to have to touch every document in order to update a menu. the menu should be distinct and be changeable without touching existing documents.

current html standards do not allow that because they do not support include. and http does not support directories. that's one advantage gopher had over http.

i can include the menu with javascript, or i could use xslt. but either way, the menu is an application, and it's not part of the document.

no being able to make this distinction is what forced me to build dynamic websites already in the early 90s. back then we didn't even have javascript, we only had serverside includes and eventually servers that could generate whole pages dynamically. it is in part what led me to a search for better webservers than the ones ncsa and cern were offering. but that's another story.
by gdudeman | 2025-08-13 16:42:49+00:00
Warning: A natural response to this is to instruct Claude not to do this in the CLAUDE.md file, but you’re then polluting the context and distracting it from its primary job.

If you watch its thinking, you will see references to these instructions instead of to the task at hand.

It’s akin telling an employee that they can never say certain words. They’re inevitably going to be worse at their job.
by 1-more | 2025-08-13 16:43:05+00:00
Gonna sound like a lunatic, but I have used AI agents to set up flake.nix for the following things:

- My basic nix-darwin and home-manager setup for my laptop

- Declarative tooling install for my clone of an open source Rust project

- LaTeX setup for my notes for a book club, including creating a nix package inside the flake to install the version of Garamond I wanted. Traditionally, installing LaTeX and non-free-fonts involves running a bunch of commands as root and praying. This is way better.

It took a lot of prodding and telling it things like "you'll know you did it right when `make all` works", but they all ended up working exactly how I wanted them to.
by cratermoon | 2025-08-13 16:43:17+00:00
"understand the human language, write programs, and find bugs in a complex code base"

LLMs do none of those things. "LLMs are language models, and their superpower is fluency. It’s this fluency that hacks our brains, trapping us into seeing them as something they aren’t."

https://jenson.org/timmy/
by weitendorf | 2025-08-13 16:43:20+00:00
Respectfully, I disagree. It is much faster and cheaper to direct an LLM to add a call to a battle-tested library that encapsulates complex logic than it is to design and implement that logic from scratch, even if it’s capable of that.

We’re betting on almost the exact opposite idea: we can make agentic software engineering cheaper and more reliable by making it easy for LLMs to write, find, and integrate libraries and other third party software.
by lucb1e | 2025-08-13 16:43:48+00:00
Then I can't explain why it's producing the results that it does. If you have more information to share, I'm happy to update my knowledge...

Doing a web search on the topic just comes up with marketing materials. Even Wikipedia's "Reasoning language model" article is mostly a list of release dates and model names, with as only relevant-sounding remark as to how these models are different: "[LLMs] can be fine-tuned on a dataset of reasoning tasks paired with example solutions and step-by-step (reasoning) traces. The fine-tuned model can then produce its own reasoning traces for new problems." It sounds like just another dataset: more examples, more training, in particular on worked examples where this "think step by step" method is being demonstrated with known-good steps and values. I don't see how that fundamentally changes how it works; you're saying such models do not predict the most likely token for a given context anymore, that there is some fundamentally different reasoning process going on somewhere?
by varispeed | 2025-08-13 16:44:02+00:00
This is what Western governments miss: China didn’t get rich from its surveillance state - it got rich from manufacturing, much of it handed to them by the West. If we were serious about prosperity, we’d be copying their industrial base, not their domestic spying. But rebuilding skills and factories is hard; building tools to monitor and manage a population in decline is easy - and far more entertaining for a state that seems to prefer watching the poor struggle to fixing the conditions that keep them there.
by burnte | 2025-08-13 16:44:06+00:00
They actually can. Fiduciary responsibility does not mean you can only do the most profitable thing and nothing else. You just need leaders willing to do it and a board to agree. Boards and officers are given wide latitude to do what's right, and shareholder suits have a really high bar to pass to prove officers or the board were really wrong.

The idea that public corps MUST do everything possible to make a penny is a myth perpetuated by the people who run those large corps and WANT to be evil because it's the most profitable path for them.
by shriracha | 2025-08-13 16:44:14+00:00
I appreciate the nuanced take here. LLMs have definitely made certain tasks easier, and therefor let me build ou features I wouldn't have had time to before (i.e. the theme picker example from the blog post)... but I am increasingly finding myself susceptible to the "tumbleweed effect" you describe, where an LLM can start to feel like more of a crutch than a tool.
by justinrubek | 2025-08-13 16:44:14+00:00
How many layers of complexity live in in your current arrangement? They're still there. I've owned my own networking hardware for a long time, and it's stable to the point that I essentially never touch it after minimal setup. Some of us choose to go further down this path for our own reasons: features we want to use, to grow our knowledge, or just because we can. I find this take dismissive, reductive, and ultimately not a productive.
by rowanG077 | 2025-08-13 16:44:35+00:00
Of course people need to be protected. That's why it's literally illegal to scam people almost everywhere. That doesn't men that people should not ALSO attempt to protect themselves from scammers.

It's quite dirty to bring up the elderly, infirm and mentally ill. Because of course they cannot help themselves. Those groups are not what this is about, and you damn well know it. This is about normal functioning adults walking into scams with their eyes open. And yes that group has a responsibility to keep up with the scams that are commonplace. It's ridiculous to encourage people to go through life with their blinders on because "the world should just be a fair place". Yeah it should be, but tough luck, reality is different.
by kstrauser | 2025-08-13 16:45:07+00:00
Hard disagree. When I'm reading a transcript, I want word-for-word what the people said, not a creative edit. I want the speakers' voice, not the transcriptionist's.

And when I'm watching subtitles in my own language (say because I want the volume low so I'm not disturbing others), I hate when the words I see don't match the words I hear. It's the quickest way I can imagine to get sucked out of the content and into awareness of the delivery of the content.
by cityofdelusion | 2025-08-13 16:45:36+00:00
Realistically speaking, Germany was never on track to produce atomic weapons before their war economy was obliterated by the allies. The program was not taken seriously or had proper investment. The war machine was already severely starved of resources prior to their even more significant land losses in 1944. I honestly can’t even think of an alternate (realistic) timeline where they achieve a delivery system for atomic weaponry.
by tucnak | 2025-08-13 16:45:36+00:00
Spooks have been doing keynotes for a few years now. The so-called hackers are on toes, because deep down they wish to be daddy'd up to get to do some silly, secret-type shit. Contrary to the past, when spooks despised computer people (that's how cypherpunk came about.) On the other hand, Clearances are not what they used to be, too; every fart having to do with computers, analysis, collection is classed TS by default.