MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zeras | 2025-08-31 16:49:53+00:00
I think a fundamental mistake I see many developers make is they use caching trying to solve problems rather than improve efficiency.

It's the equivalent of adding more RAM to fix poor memory management or adding more CPUs/servers to compensate for resource heavy and slow requests and complex queries.

If your application requires caching to function effectively then you have a core issue that needs to be resolved, and if you don't address that issue then caching will become the problem eventually as your application grows more complex and active.
by homebrewer | 2025-08-31 16:50:23+00:00
In my case, it is because there aren't any left that don't do this. Two banks still provide web interfaces that work through normal browsers, but only for their business clients.

This trend started in China, spread to countries like mine, and (as recent history shows) the relatively free democracies have been more than happy to copy some pretty nasty ideas from autocracies like ours — we went through your current news cycle 10-15 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing the last few vestiges of having control over your computing also came to you in another five to ten years.
by BigJono | 2025-08-31 16:50:29+00:00
> In this process, deletion rather than expansion of the wording of the message is preferable, because if an ordinary message is paraphrased simply by expanding it along its original lines, an expert can easily reduce the paraphrased message to its lowest terms, and the resultant wording will be practically the original message.

This bit has me perplexed. If you had a single message that you wanted to send multiple times in different forms, wouldn't compressing the message exponentially limit possible variation whereas expanding it would exponentially increase it? If you had to send the same message more than a couple of times I'd expect to see accidental duplicates pretty quickly if everyone had been instructed to reduce the message size.

I guess the idea is that if the message has been reduced in two different ways then you have to have removed some information about the original, whereas that's not a guarantee with two different expansions. But what I don't understand is that even if you have a pair of messages, decrypt one, and manage to reconstruct the original message, isn't the other still encrypted expansion still different to the original message? How does that help you decrypt the second one if you don't know which parts of the encrypted message represent the differences?
by insane_dreamer | 2025-08-31 16:50:43+00:00
People create content for free but not to be sucked into some machine that funds a $T company who mixes it up and spits it out without attribution. You want to share info for the sake of it but you also care deeply about how it’s presented and would like people to come read it on your site. So all that volunteer stuff will be killed along with all the recipe sites because those people aren’t going to put in the time and effort without some financial return (the pages of ads we detest but put up with).

In the short term it will feel liberating; in the long term it will kill the web.
by kstrauser | 2025-08-31 16:50:48+00:00
That's unfortunate. It's not exactly easy in the US, either. When I wanted to get treatment, I asked my family doc, who referred me to a psychiatrist. The psych diagnosed me with anxiety and depression. We tried treating that; it failed. Turns out ADHD causes a lot of anxiety. The anxiety was a symptom, not the cause. I found another doc who specializes in ADHD who finally started treating it, and the change was immediate.
by Fricken | 2025-08-31 16:50:52+00:00
I was following Killian last year on instagram while he was doing his link-up of the 4,000 metre peaks in the Alps. It was quite the inspiration as I was on an adventure of my own, cycling with a friend 1000 miles over 10 days between Vancouver and my home city of Edmonton. I'm looking forward to following Killian for this challenge as well. It sounds nuts.
by dboreham | 2025-08-31 16:50:54+00:00
Yes, but in my experience actually no. At least not with the bleeding edge models today. I've been able to get LLMs to write whole features to the point that I'm quite surprised at the result. Perhaps I'm talking to it right (the new "holding it right"?). I tend to begin asking for an empty application with the characteristics I want (CLI, has subcommands, ...) then I ask it to add a simple feature. Get that working then ask it to enhance functionality progressively, testing as we go. Then when functionality is working I ask for a refactor (often it puts 1500 loc in one file, for example), doc, improve help text, and so on. Basically the same way you'd manage a human.

I've also been close to astonished at the capability LLMs have to draw conclusions from very large complex codebases. For example I wanted to understand the details of a distributed replication mechanism in a project that is enormous. Pre-LLM I'd spent a couple of days crawling through the code using grep and perhaps IDE tools, making notes on paper. I'd probably have to run the code or instrument it with logging then look at the results in a test deployment. But I've found I can ask the LLM to take a look at the p2p code and tell me how it works. Then ask it how the peer set is managed. I can ask it if all reachable peers are known at all nodes. It's almost better than me at this, and it's what I've done for a living for 30 years. Certainly it's very good for very low cost and effort. While it's chugging I can think about higher order things.

I say all this as a massive AI skeptic dating back to the 1980s.
by pkulak | 2025-08-31 16:51:09+00:00
Say you start on Main, then make a new branch that you intend to be a PR someday. You make commit 1. Then another. Maybe 6 more. Now you realize that something in commit 1 should have been done differently. So, you "edit" commit 1. All the other commits automatically rebase on top and when you go back to your last commit, it's there. Same with _after_ you PR and someone notices something in commit 3. Edit it, push, and it's fixed.

You can do all that in Git, but I sure as hell never did; and my co-workers really appreciate PRs that are broken into lots of little commits that can be easily looked over, one by one.
by hoidofyolen | 2025-08-31 16:51:11+00:00
First of all, Bluesky the company would have to implement auth on the communication between relay and AppView, cut off everyone from using their relay, and specifically stop ingesting content from non-Bluesky PDSs. There would be time when we realize that's happening to get another AppView up and running. There are arguably enough resources in either the ATproto dev community or other funding sources that another AppView could pop up within a week or two, and be maintained by the community for months without issue. And Bluesky wouldn't likely stop existing altogether, so people would log into Bluesky, see the news (or hear it elsewhere), and see people talking about how to get access to your account.

Secondly, while you're right that most people don't have copies of their repos, some copies of the entire network exist in the community, as well as copies of the PLC Directory. Within a couple weeks we would have community run versions of the AppView, PDSs, Relays, and PLC, and some seriously pissed off community members who would now want to do everything they can to take up the mantle temporarily. Soon Bluesky the app, as well as Instagram and Twitter, would be flooded with tutorials of how to recover your accounts and migrate to another PDS.

If your point is that we'd lose at least half of the users of Bluesky, then yea probably. But ATproto would be just fine, and if people want to get their data back they likely can, as long as they can stomach a little work. And that process is getting easier all the time.
by jonahx | 2025-08-31 16:51:32+00:00
In a sense, all of these coding practices -- whether restricting goto to loops and conditionals, which has broad acceptance these days, or avoiding else to "keep the happy left", or anything else in a coding style guide -- are just doing one thing: restricting the language to a smaller subset of itself.

And in general the primary benefit of such restriction is to reduce cognitive load. Scheme is easier than C++. The downside of such restriction is loss of expressiveness. Whether the net benefit is good depends on how these two things trade off. Experience and developer preference are inputs to that equation, which is why devs fight over coding guidelines. But I think it's helpful to boil it down in this way at a high level.

The ideal is smaller language where the expressiveness you've cut away is only rarely useful, and often error-prone.
by majormajor | 2025-08-31 16:51:56+00:00
Citation needed on your definition of adequate testing, gene therapy products, etc.

The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
by necheffa | 2025-08-31 16:52:23+00:00
This is very much a big compromise where you decide for yourself that storage capacity and maybe throughput are more important than anything else.

The md metadata is not adequately protected. Btrfs checksums can tell you when a file has gone bad but not self-heal. And I'm sure there are going to be caching/perf benefits left on the table not having btrfs manage all the block storage itself.
by justin66 | 2025-08-31 16:52:23+00:00
The problem at this stage is, the older versions of the software which are complete and which everyone historically used are closed source and now out of date because they target OSes from eleven years ago, and there’s an open source version which nobody contributes to because it’s incomplete and different than the version everyone used.

As with - for example - the classic Netscape browser, it would have made more sense to just open source the one people used, rather than some new and incomplete thing. The pertinent difference being there weren’t thousands of open source developers waiting to take up the slack and help finish an incomplete version of REBOL.

(Someone more familiar is welcome to correct me on the details)
by wry_discontent | 2025-08-31 16:52:46+00:00
I switched from Magit to jujutsu. The only difference for me is that stacking PRs has become simpler. It's also made me more conscious of making smaller changes and shrinking what I consider "worth shipping".

Overall a positive experience, but if Magit is working for you, there's no killer feature that makes it worthwhile.

I'm also using https://github.com/bolivier/jj-mode.el which lets me do enough of what I need with jj from within Emacs.
by adastra22 | 2025-08-31 16:54:02+00:00
There’s a well-known short story called “ The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant” meant to reveal how ridiculous and nonsensical society’s attitude towards death is. You seem to be taking the opinion that the society shown within, in which death is artificial and societally enforced, is ideal and something to emulate.

I truly don’t know how to respond to this. If you want to die on a rigid time table, fine. Don’t take the rest of us out with you.

[0]: The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/the-fable-of-the-dragon-tyran...
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2025-08-31 16:54:03+00:00
Meanwhile, in the real world:

- We went from the vast majority of traffic being unencrypted, allowing any passive attacker (from nation state to script kiddie sitting in the coffee shop) to snoop and any active attacker to trivially tamper with it, to all but a vanishing minority of connections being strongly encrypted. The scare tactics used to sell VPNs in YouTube ads used to all be true, and no longer are, due to this.

- We went from TLS certificates being unaffordable to hobbyists to TLS certificates being not only free, but trivial to automatically obtain.

- We went from a CA ecosystem where only commercial alternatives exist to one where the main CA is a nonprofit run by a foundation consisting mostly of strong proponents of Internet freedom.

- Even if you count ZeroSSL and Let's Encrypt as US-controlled, there is at least one free non-US alternative using the same protocol, i.e. suitable as a drop-in replacement (https://www.actalis.com/subscription).

- Plenty of other paid but affordable alternatives exist from countless countries, and the ecosystem seems to be getting better, not worse.

- While many other paths have been used to attempt to censor web sites, I haven't seen the certificate system used for this frequently (I'm sure there are individual court orders somewhere).

- If the US wanted to put its full weight behind getting a site off the Internet, it would have other levers that would be equally or more effective.

- Most Internet freedom advocates recognize that the migration to HTTPS was a really, really good thing.
by coldtea | 2025-08-31 16:54:24+00:00
>but then you come out with such a story which makes me want to stay away from anything related to Ableton.

Knee-jerk responding like that to a random anecdotes by a random person on the internet, who might as well be total bullshit, is not exactly the most prudent software evaluation path.

Perhaps the "mocking" was just the CEO not placing the importance that the person thinks their request should. Or the CEO responded to rude incessant tone. Or the CEO had a bad day, and the parent was like the 10th person nagging their balls with their pet peeves at that show.

The amount of information to that comment is almost zero, and we don't know tons of context.
by furyofantares | 2025-08-31 16:54:24+00:00
People keep saying this, but the young folks who start out with stuff are gonna surpass us old folks at some point. Us old folks just get a big head start.

Right now we're comparing seniors who learned the old way to juniors who learned the old way. Soon we'll start having juniors who started out with this stuff.

It also takes time to learn how to teach people to use tools. We're all still figuring out how to use these, and I think again, more experience is a big help here. But at some point we'll start having people who not only start out with this stuff, but they get to learn from people who've figured out how to use it already.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-08-31 16:54:25+00:00
> what unix-worthy work can you actually do on a phone?

I do most of my light/routine server management via SSH from my phone, plus keeping a version control checkout of my documents that I do actually work on in vim (yes, the limited keyboard is annoying but it's fine for light work). At a previous job, the former extended quite far; I could get paged in the middle of the night, connect to the VPN, SSH into the server, triage, and frequently diagnose and even fix the problem without having to actually get out of bed.
by firesteelrain | 2025-08-31 16:54:28+00:00
The sad part in all of this is that Microsoft likely had no policy that required him to work this much and yet the Microsoft cultural pressure combined with H1B unknowns drove him to not take care of himself and apply immense amounts of undue pressure. Managers need to be aware of this and question why their employees feel the need to work this much. Either hire more or coach the employees not to burn out.
by bigyabai | 2025-08-31 16:54:45+00:00
It's worth nothing that we don't live in the 1980s anymore. Radio play, opening for Nickleback, selling merch - all of this matters much less than having a dedicated Internet following. We have lots of examples of musicians in the modern era eschewing radio play entirely, only for radios to beg for licensing rights to play their music. Or successful artists who started their own label or bought-back the rights to their masters. The times have changed quite significantly.

The other thing people seem to forget is that many of the original labels were talent agencies. The reason they promote anyone at all is to try and recoup the investment of supporting all of them. You don't have to empathize with record labels, but modern artists can absolutely "scale" without someone artificially inflating their popularity.
by actsasbuffoon | 2025-08-31 16:55:08+00:00
“Agentic coding” is probably more accurate, though many people (fairly) find the term “Agentic” to be buzz-wordy and obnoxious.

I’m willing to vibe code a spike project. That is to say, I want to see how well some new tool or library works, so I’ll tell the LLM to build a proof of concept, and then I’ll study that and see how I feel about it. Then I throw it away and build the real version with more care and attention.
by trod1234 | 2025-08-31 16:55:17+00:00
If that is the one that matches what was posted then yes. A cursory glance, those fingerprints match so I'd say yes that is one of the certificates with which we've narrowed issues down to.

I would think that a large company like voip, would have their certificate provider documented, and available to check when there is a significant issue, so when their customers report a problem and they say it isn't a match that's exactly what they mean.

Also, the only indicator of any of these issues which prompted all this, with any real explanation, is with the cert and by extension the secure tunnel which cannot be trusted. The issues extend to not just this one vendor, but several others as well across multiple devices and network connections. The translation issue appears only visible with this provider though due I suspect to their non-standard password policy, which appears contradictory at the edge in function.

Saying TLS is trustworthy, where things that shouldn't ever happen under TLS guarantees are happening, with no viable alternative explanation for the issues, where they have been troubleshooted over months at both ends, including all the way down to the raw physical level of the OSI level for traffic (at least at the edge)... that doesn't leave anyone with anywhere to go.

Still Trust TLS? If there were a reasonable alternative explanation that ties in and touches on all the issues both mentioned and unmentioned, I'd be the first to consider it.

Clearly there are objective issues where service cannot be relied upon for a business, let alone for anything less demanding. The issues are also not vendor specific and seem to be coupled loosely to geographical region. The only commonality are these Google Trust certificates.

Communications services fail silently across multiple providers, contact forms either fail to submit with weird HTTP error codes for large providers or submit with success only to have non-response with no verifiable record of submission after-the-fact, support chat's fail to load or load with a chatbot pretending to be a human with no record after-the-fact, emails disappear, and many other things that effectively rely upon only one thing in common when taken in aggregate.

When its one thing that happens in isolation at a single vendor sure I'd be more receptive to it being something else on the vendor side, but when every single path fails regularly in the same chaotic way in narrow time horizons, there's a significant issue, and one must question not only the guarantees, but the only common links.

Three or more path failures related to communication, within a short time horizon, all leading back to TLS guarantees, is beyond an astronomical bayes probability that something there is silently happening over those links that shouldn't be happening.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-08-31 16:55:20+00:00
Yes and no.

If you want to avoid the entire bandwidth of the firehose, you need something like jetstream (at least until something like sharded relays come around).

However the relay gossip protocol is not as taxing as it used to be. Relay Sync 1.1 massively decreased overhead and it allows relays to run "thin", i.e. running with only a certain backlog of history and not carrying the full history of the network. So you can make a relay that only keeps 24 hours of history and it'll perpetually stay under like 100gb of storage (I don't remember the exact storage amount but storage size is pretty linear with backlog history).
by beerws | 2025-08-31 16:55:21+00:00
Ironically, stating this at the beginning of telegram would precisely cause what it seeks to prevent (vulnerability to known plaintext attacks).

Which makes me wonder: how many permutations of this rule could be conceived (and needed) that on the one hand would keep the point clear to the receiver, but on the other hand prevent such attacks?

In any case the best option is to not have (to repeat) this rule inside messages.
by Demiurge | 2025-08-31 16:56:13+00:00
> Take jobs an American would otherwise fill

That's a big assumption. Yeah, take out all the H1b immigrant that came to this country since 1985, what do you think the US economy looks like, filled exclusively with Americans? Where do you think US economy would be? Where do you think the Silicon Vally would be now? Do you think US and Americans would be better off? Do you think that the economic input of the immigrants is net negative?

I don't think you need to answer. I think you've already said no, these workers, and their contibutions are net negative. I just don't see how that makes any sense, given they're clearly a big part of the economy.
by senekor | 2025-08-31 16:56:28+00:00
Thanks, but I consider myself a Git expert already :-) I read the Pro Git book cover to cover. I have a gluten-free, artisanal, free-range git config that I've grown and cared for over years. single character aliases all the important commands, "log all graph oneline", "commit amend no-edit", interactive rebase (ofc. with autosquash, autostash, updaterefs and rebasemerges), reset hard, push force-with-lease... Also: commit signing, url rewriting, conditional configs for different orgs, all that jazz. I was super productive with it and loved it.

And then Jujutsu came along and casually doubled my VCS productivity. I didn't see it coming!
Show HN: I made 6 AI agents debate each other about fantasy football lineups
by machinemusic | 2025-08-31 16:56:46+00:00
I got tired of choosing between data overload (RotoGrinders) and black-box optimizers that just spit out lineups with no explanation. So I built a brain-inspired multi-agent orchestration framework called Neuron, then used it to create 6 AI analysts that argue about DFS picks in real-time.

Technical stack:

- Neuron framework: Brain-inspired multi-agent orchestration I've been building since March (github.com/ShaliniAnandaPhD/Neuron)

- Landing page for Neuron: https://repo-usher.lovable.app/

- 6 LoRA-tuned models on Vertex AI (trained on T4s for ~$120/month)

- ElevenLabs + OpenAI TTS for real-time voice synthesis Next.js + Cloud Run + Firestore Aggressive caching with Upstash to keep costs at ~$0.04/debate

The agents actually interrupt each other, cite stats, and disagree. Users ask things like "Mahomes or Allen?" and watch them debate it out. One-click export to DraftKings/FanDuel when you're convinced.

Early numbers since July launch:

- 78% 7-day retention - 14 min average session - $230 revenue (users buy voice minutes) - 183 signups for NFL kickoff Sept 5

Demo: fantasyfootballneuron.app

Curious if anyone else has tried multi-agent debates for decision-making in other domains. The Neuron framework handles the tricky parts - interruption management, memory persistence, and conversation coherence.
by doubled112 | 2025-08-31 16:57:35+00:00
I had an Asus TF700 tablet which had HDMI out and a keyboard dock/touchpad probably about 10 years ago.

It could have been a decent concept if the Tegra 3 chipset wasn’t a little underpowered and the onboard storage so slow.

On new stuff, a Bluetoothu keyboard and mouse more or less solve input, and USB-C should solve video out (and input if you want). Modern phones should be powerful enough for basic desktop use, I just don’t think people want it.