MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by skadamou | 2025-08-14 16:35:22+00:00
Methylene blue is actually used to treat acquired cases of a similar condition called methemeglobinemia which is when the iron in heme is oxide from Fe2+ to Fe3+ [1]. This is different from carbon monoxide poisoning which is caused by carbon monoxide binding more tightly to hemoglobin than oxygen preventing oxygen from effectively getting into your blood.

[1] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/methemoglobinemia?search=m...
by masterj | 2025-08-14 16:35:26+00:00
> LLM"s amy not be able to build software today, but they are 10x better than where they were in 2022 when we first started using chatgpt. Its pretty reasonable to assume in 5 years they will be able to do these types of development tasks.

We can expect them to be better in 5 years, but your last assertion doesn't follow. We can't assert with any certainty that they will be able to specifically solve the problems laid out in the article. It might just not be a thing LLMs are good at, and we'll need new breakthroughs that may or may not appear.
by myrmidon | 2025-08-14 16:37:08+00:00
Yeah, but that does not really matter; everyone else that imported meat (or feed ) now competes for McDonalds suppliers, which means higher prices.

You can also expect to pay more for labor itself, because every bit of industry that you bring back (or scale up, at least) with tariffs competes with the essentially fixed labor pool, and there was not a lot of slack (unemployment) to start with.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-08-14 16:37:26+00:00
Started? In my opinion they haven't gotten better since the release of ChatGPT a few years ago. The weaknesses are still just as bad, the strengths have not improved. Which is why I disagree with the hype saying they'll get better still. They don't do the things they are claimed to today, and haven't gotten better in the last few years. Why would I believe that they'll achieve even higher goals in the future?
Show HN: I made a 2-dimensional Rubik's Cube game
by g4zj | 2025-08-14 16:37:33+00:00
After seeing an interesting 2-dimensional representation of a standard 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube on YouTube (link in the game description), I decided to try and make an interactive version.

Hopefully someone appreciates this. :)

https://claire-bomb.itch.io/rubiks-cube-2d
by epistasis | 2025-08-14 16:37:39+00:00
There are plenty of constitutionalists, and reducing the entire polity to either neoliberal or fascists ignores the reality of the country. Further, by trying to ignore the existence of the large number of us who do want to defend the constitution, you hasten it's demise by emboldening those who are seeking to destroy it.

I don't agree with calling anarchy the most far-left ideology, just as I don't agree with calling Marxism the most far-left ideology, because this isn't a one-dimensional axis. The meaning of words is continuously shifting in language, especially with something as slippery as political ideologies, which themselves are continually changing. We must make the words the tools of our communication, instead of our communication the tool of the words.
by 9rx | 2025-08-14 16:37:46+00:00
> It's much worse than the Financial Crisis.

That's not saying much. While there was a month or two early on where it was a bit touch and go, granted, all-in-all the Financial Crisis period was one of the best times ever to be a programmer. That was the App Store gold rush era and all the investment dollars running away from every other industry due to financial crisis concerns was funnelling into tech.
by nocman | 2025-08-14 16:38:32+00:00
> Some people just enjoy being contrarian.

And some people just happen to disagree - doesn't automatically mean they just like "being contrarian". I took the "Yup..." to mean "this is what I was expecting, because it agrees with what I have seen before on this topic".

> I always enjoy how on jj articles, 90% of commenters tried it and switched, 10% never bothered to try it, and 0% tried it but decided not to switch.

And some unknown quantity of readers don't see anything compelling enough to either try it and/or comment on it after they have (or have not) tried it.
by AlexandrB | 2025-08-14 16:38:43+00:00
The latter often leverages the former to work around having to legislate things that are unpopular or unconstitutional. A great example is government agencies buying data from data brokers or the Twitter files where the government leaned on Twitter to downrank "wrong" ideas. With the proliferation of powerful near-monopolies - especially in tech - "the market" has little way to work around these kinds of problems, especially in the short term.

I guess my point is that both are dangerous to freedom, and ideally the government would do something to curtail corporate censorship instead of encouraging it. That's the whole idea of a "common carrier"[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
by ranger207 | 2025-08-14 16:39:20+00:00
Authoritarianism, whether Nazism, Soviet Communism, or French Revolutionary Government, is the belief that some group knows best and everyone else should allow them to make decisions, and that furthermore incorrect beliefs should be stamped out. Not engaging with authoritarian beliefs only reinforces the belief that they're correct and everyone else is wrong; after all, from their perspective nobody's ever proved them wrong.

Related to that though is the fact that authoritarianism has slowly become more prevalent over the past few decades, and it's easier than ever for people to get into cliques and echo chambers that never challenge their beliefs. That's resulted in a decrease in skills in truly changing people's minds about things, since in an echo chamber it's easier to just kick out anyone who disagrees, and if you're kicked out it's easier to just create your own echo chamber that espouses your belief than to convince people in the other echo chamber. This naturally leads to authoritarianism where an echo chamber believes that they're right and everyone else's incorrect opinions should be suppressed. When that community pops out of their echo chamber and tries to change everyone else's beliefs, it's only natural for people to respond with the best way they've learned how: refuse to engage.

I absolutely understand the desire not to engage with Nazis. But, ignoring Nazis is definitionally not going to do anything to fix the root of the problem
by FredPret | 2025-08-14 16:39:34+00:00
Let me say first of all that the card networks do great work enabling commerce by being lightning-fast and generally secure.

I can securely complete transactions and subscriptions with ~anyone on the planet in mere seconds.

But holy cow do they have large margins. 40-50%!

The profit growth charts on these two are a sight to behold.

http://valustox.com/MA

http://valustox.com/V

The situation is simply begging for disruption.
by pgaddict | 2025-08-14 16:39:41+00:00
The funny thing is the local communist newspaper "Red Truth" (as if there were non-communist ones, ...) published a review of LOTR in 1977, in which they pretty much took the side of the Mordor. (It might be a made-up joke from the 90s, but the spirit of absurdity is spot on for 1977.)

The reasoning was roughly:

* Mordor is obviously meant to be USSR, as it's in the east.

* The orcs are clearly heavy industry workers, building the world of future.

* Bilbo is obviously a son from a bourgeoisie family, disgusted by hard work.

* The west is represented by elves = aristocracy, people = bourgeoisie, hobbits = landowners.

* The group of reactionaries are afraid of a made up "threat from the east", led by Gandalf.

* Gandalf = a reactionary ideologue, keeping people in state of fear of progress and knowledge.

* Saruman = protector of the oppressed, declared a traitor and destroyed by the reactionaries.

* But socialism can't be destroyed by throwing something in the fire. All the power to Mordor, surrounded by reactionary neighbors.
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-14 16:39:53+00:00
Don’t the M-series processors for Mac book pro’s have a huge amount of HBM which is good for models? I see you can get a pro with 48MB of unified memory whereas Alienware will sell you a machine with 32GB of regular ram and 24GB of graphics RAM on a 5090 discrete GPU. So the pro has twice the RAM accessible to the GPU.
Ask HN: How do you connect with other founders in your city?
by leonagano | 2025-08-14 16:40:13+00:00
I’ve noticed it’s surprisingly hard to find and meet other startup founders nearby, unless it’s at a meetup.

I’ve been experimenting with a simple map for founders to see who’s nearby and arrange things like coffee chats or coworking days. Some groups could be filtered (YC alumni, bootstrappers, local accelerators....).

I’m curious to know how you currently meet other founders in your area. Would a tool like this actually be useful, or do you find IRL meetings happening in other ways?
by vel0city | 2025-08-14 16:40:33+00:00
Still, if the "real" inflation rate was ~10% starting in 1996 then a $5 burger today supposedly cost ~$0.30 in 1996.

A lot of soda vending machines will sell a 20oz bottle of soda for ~$2.50. Were soda vending machines selling bottles of soda for $0.15 back then? No.
by Xss3 | 2025-08-14 16:40:39+00:00
I feel like something is wrong where you are, maybe your juniors do not feel incentivized or encouraged to learn, code reviews might not be strict enough, quality may not be valued enough, and immense pressure to move tickets might be put on people, or all of the above in various doses.

I feel this way because at my company our interns on a gap year from their comp sci degree don't blame the compiler, cosmic bits, or blindly copy from stack overflow.

They're incentivized and encouraged to learn and absolutely choose to do so. The same goes for seniors.

If you say 'I've been learning about X for ticket Y' in the standup people basically applaud it, managers like us training ourselves to be better.

Sure managers may want to see a brief summary or a write-up applicable to our department if you aren't putting code down for a few days, but that's the only friction.
by SilasX | 2025-08-14 16:40:57+00:00
>I don’t like the analogy because “hosting an event” is a fuzzy thing. If you are hosting an event with friends you might be able to rely on the shared values of your friends and the informal nature of the thing to enforce this sort of norm.

You can't, though -- not perfectly, anyway. Whatever the informal norms, there are going to be people who violate them, and so the fault shouldn't pass on to you when you don't know someone is doing that. If anything, the analogy understates how unreasonable it is to FB, since they had an explicit contractual agreement for the other party not to send them sensitive data.

And as it stands now, websites aren't expected to pre-filter for some heuristic on "non-consensual user-uploaded photographs" (which would require an authentication chain), just to take them down when informed they're illegal ... which FB did (the analog of) here.

>If you are a business that host events and your business model involves photos of the event, you should have a professional approach to knowing if people consented to have their photos shared, depending on the nature of the venue.

I'm not sure that's the standard you want to base this argument on, because in most cases, the "professional approach" amounts to "if you come here at all, you're consenting to be photographed for publication, take it or leave it lol". FB had a stronger standard than this.
by yieldcrv | 2025-08-14 16:41:13+00:00
For those wondering if you are privileged enough to willingly make yourself ineligible for some jobs that your qualified for like the above poster is:

This has never been my experience. Quirkyness in the interview loops have never dictated my on the job experience. And having been pulled in to conduct interviews, I can say that its all so last minute and unplanned, that it reinforces how little it matters. Judge a company all you want, just get the offer first.

You’ll probably never talk with the hiring manager or that recruiter again. You’ll probably be working with a different PM and engineers.
by trimbybj | 2025-08-14 16:41:20+00:00
Often those of us that do want to learn what the business problem is are not allowed to be involved in those discussions, for various reasons. Sometimes it's "Oh we can take care of that so you don't have to deal with it," and sometimes it's "Just build to this design/spec" and they're not used to engineers (the good ones) questioning things.
by programd | 2025-08-14 16:41:25+00:00
> [LLMs] spit out the most likely text to follow some other text based on probability.

Modern coding AI models are not just probability crunching transformers. They haven't been just that for some time. In current coding models the transformer bit is just one part of what is really an expert system. The complete package includes things like highly curated training data, specialized tokenizers, pre and post training regimens, guardrails, optimized system prompts etc, all tuned to coding. Put it all together and you get one shot performance on generating the type of code that was unthinkable even a year ago.

The point is that the entire expert system is getting better at a rapid pace and the probability bit is just one part of it. The complexity frontier for code generation keeps moving and there's still a lot of low hanging fruit to be had in pushing it forward.

> They're great for writing boilerplate that has been written a million times with different variations

That's >90% of all code in the wild. Probably more. We have three quarters of a century of code in our history so there is very little that's original anymore. Maybe original to the human coder fresh out of school, but the models have all this history to draw upon. So if the models produce the boilerplate reliably then human toil in writing if/then statements is at an end. Kind of like - barring the occasional mad genious [0] - the vast majority of coders don't write assembly to create a website anymore.

[0] https://asm32.info/index.cgi?page=content/0_MiniMagAsm/index...
by andrewmutz | 2025-08-14 16:41:32+00:00
The author does not understand what LLMs and coding tools are capable of today.

> LLMs get endlessly confused: they assume the code they wrote actually works; when test fail, they are left guessing as to whether to fix the code or the tests; and when it gets frustrating, they just delete the whole lot and start over. This is exactly the opposite of what I am looking for. Software engineers test their work as they go. When tests fail, they can check in with their mental model to decide whether to fix the code or the tests, or just to gather more data before making a decision. When they get frustrated, they can reach for help by talking things through. And although sometimes they do delete it all and start over, they do so with a clearer understanding of the problem.

My experiences are based on using Cline with Anthropic Sonnet 3.7 doing TDD on Rails, and have a very different experience. I instruct the model to write tests before any code and it does. It works in small enough chunks that I can review each one. When tests fail, it tends to reason very well about why and fixes the appropriate place. It is very common for the LLM to consult more code as it goes to learn more.

It's certainly not perfect but it works about as well, if not better, than a human junior engineer. Sometimes it can't solve a bug, but human junior engineers get in the same situation too.
by mahmoud-almadi | 2025-08-14 16:41:43+00:00
Are you referring to the LLM being used or where the actions (click, type, etc) are being executed? The actual actions can be executed on any windows machine, so the actual execution can take place locally on your device. The LLMs we're using right now are cloud LLMs. We haven't done an LLM self hosting option yet. Can I ask what reservations you have about running in the cloud? We have zero-date retention signed with our LLM vendors, so none of the data getting sent to them ever gets retained.
by jacobegold | 2025-08-14 16:41:52+00:00
(Graphite dev here)

Yeah – the key thing here is that there is work to be done on the server, so JJ likely either needs its own forge or a GitHub App that handles managing PRs for each JJ commit.

I'm a huge fan of the JJ paradigm – this is something I'd love for us to be able to do in the future once one or both of: - we have more bandwidth to go down this road - JJ is popular enough that its worthwhile for us to do

That said I'd also love to see if anyone in the community comes up with an elegant GH app for this!!
by ethbr1 | 2025-08-14 16:42:09+00:00
I hear what you're saying, and agree with large parts of it. Ethnic background shouldn't override individual autonomy. But...

> The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.”

... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women).

It'd be nice if the reasonable people from both parties could ignore their extremist wings, get to together, and realize they have more in common than different.
by shkkmo | 2025-08-14 16:42:39+00:00
> When the benchmark changes, you should ask 'why.'

The article goes into detail about why the poverty line changed. You must have skimmed past the secrion titled "How the World Bank sets the International Poverty Line".

The TLDR; is that it is at root based on the median poverty line set by the government of very poor countries (which is calculated in a complex way that is explained in footnotes and cited articles.)

At root, it isn't NGOs that caused the number to change, but it was inderectly caused by changes in how poor countries measure poverty themselves.
by cubefox | 2025-08-14 16:42:45+00:00
I think it has to do with the fact that YouTube basically never had serious competitors except in the very early days. The only semi-competition is now TikTok, which they copied with YouTube Shorts. But their regular video business has been completely unchallenged for 15 years. In an environment without competition, efficiency and effectiveness of internal decision making can easily degrade over time.
by llm_nerd | 2025-08-14 16:42:59+00:00
Indeed, just generally this is a silly feature that was used to sell updated devices, but has almost no value to end users. There is shockingly little diagnostic value of the reading unless you are in such a critical state that you likely want something better than an incredibly unreliable and inaccurate smartwatch feature cram.

For anyone remotely healthy, 100% of the time your real value will be between 95% and 99%, and there is almost no diagnostic value to it. Heart rate is actually interesting and is something you can learn from and work towards. SpO2 is just "eh...neat".
by throw0101a | 2025-08-14 16:42:59+00:00
> Yes, it would be nice to have well-informed voters and intelligent and well-argued discussions.

"Feelings don't care about (your) facts." — not Ben Shapiro, https://www.amazon.com/Facts-Dont-Care-about-Feelings/dp/194...

"You don’t bring facts to a feelings fight." — Cole Christie, https://www.in8create.com/blog/herding-squirrels-ep-03-w-col...
by mccoyb | 2025-08-14 16:43:01+00:00
I think you're accurately describing a "regression to the mean" phenomenon, which LLMs have transmitted to areas involving programmatic control through text.

I recently used an LLM to help scaffold a piece of technical writing. I showed it to several of my peers (sharp and accomplished PhD students), and they immediately identified the paragraphs (even sentences in captions!) written by an LLM. I had spent a good amount of time prompt engineering Opus 4 to try and produce a coherent piece of content aligned with a narrative which I had already developed, but it was still _immediately obvious_ what was not consistent ... it stood out like a sore thumb to experts.

By the the time we finished the content, there was not a sentence of LLM-generated writing in the final product.

Possibly an incorrect extrapolation, but I think my experience here is the current status quo. Code is a bit easier for these systems, because the LLM can align against test suites, type systems, etc. But for writing ... you just can't trust the current capabilities to pass the sniff test by experts.

After all, how does one commmunicate "coherence" as a test which the LLM might align its generations against? That's why you need a shared world model (with your audience) -- and if we could produce a computational representation of such a thing, we might have a chance at better coherent / consistent technical writing generations.
by toenail | 2025-08-14 16:43:01+00:00
I pay zero taxes on bitcoin, legally.

> Nobody are disputing that it is a really bad idea to hold cash above an emergency fund. Everyone is highly discouraging you from doing it.

So you know that modern money doesn't fulfill one of the central uses of money that was known since the antiquity: store of value. And you know that people have to waste time to learn about investments instead of working their jobs and enjoying their time off. But you still think fiat money is great?
by bilbo0s | 2025-08-14 16:43:02+00:00
I've been saying since Clinton when it started to become clear, that liberals and conservatives will eventually kill the ideals of this Republic. (And not only the ideals expressed in the First.) They've been chipping away for long enough that they now believe it is safe for them to chop.

These people are all dangerous in the extreme. It's just that the conservatives have unmasked themselves and displayed the extreme danger they represent to our ideals in the US in a far more open fashion than liberals.
by parineum | 2025-08-14 16:43:12+00:00
> Anyone that says LLMs do not qualify as AI are the same people who will continue to move the goal posts for AGI.

I have the complete opposite feeling. The layman understanding of the term "AI" is AGI, a term that only needs to exist because researchers and businessmen hype their latest creations as AI.

The goalposts for AI don't move but the definition isn't precise but we know it when we see it.

AI, to the layman, is Skynet/Terminator, Asimov's robots, Data, etc.

The goalposts moving that you're seeing is when something the tech bubble calls AI escapes the tech bubble and everyone else looks at it and says, no, that's not AI.

The problem is that everything that comes out of the research efforts toward AI, the tech industry calls AI despite it not achieving that goal by the common understanding of the term. LLMs were/are a hopeful AI candidate but, as of today, they aren't but that doesn't stop OpenAI from trying to raise money using the term.
by danans | 2025-08-14 16:43:17+00:00
> When the top 5% makes 3x more than the bottom 50%? The top 5% makes 38% of the total, while the top 1% alone makes 22%, per the same sources you just quoted. Yes, the ones who make the most can afford to pay the most in taxes.

And this isn't even considering the wealth distribution disparity, which is even greater than the income distribution disparity. A lot of that is held in the form physical assets (property) and government debt.

Financially, the wealthy own the government. In a way, a lot of the taxes they pay go back to them in the form of interest paid on government debt.
by einarfd | 2025-08-14 16:43:35+00:00
When reading the article I was reminded of reading Sarah Wynn-Williams book Careless People. The carelessness and disregard for obvious and real ramifications, of the policy choices of management, seems to not have changed from her time at Facebook.

If they didn't see this type of problem coming from mile away, they just didn't bother to look. Which tbh. seems fairly on brand for Meta.