MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dylan604 | 2025-08-12 01:46:38+00:00
In my experience, "call for quote" type places are way more expensive than $5.99/month type of things. It's usually for the plans that for more than 2,000/perX that get those. At that point, it is definitely a negotiation. These places feel like just because your website receives X hits per hour/day/week translates to you being able to pay for a higher rate to do something like license a font/image/music.

The places that are using 'call for quote' on things available on Walmart tend to be people that don't want people of Walmart listed as a customer. However, again, in my experience, I haven't seen one of these. It's been for things that are going to have sticker shock level pricing.
by tetromino_ | 2025-08-12 01:46:46+00:00
I have always been mystified by the popularity of poker. To me, it is an unpleasant game.

First - the fact that it's played for real money. If I win, I feel like a common swindler stealing money that someone could use to pay their bills or buy something nice for themselves. If I lose, I feel like a swindler's victim. And if the people around the table happen to be my friends - why would I ever wish to victimize them, or ruin their image in my mind by watching them victimize others?

Second - the lack of information. Many interesting games provide incomp9lete information of game state to the players, which one then needs to reconstruct. But with poker, the lack of information is so severe that one has no hope of reconstructing the game state - reasonable possibilities are too many to analyze, one is forced to pretty much guess and make gambles. It's an unpleasant experience.

It seems like a game for people whose brains are wired in a manner incompatible with mine. If I discover that someone likes poker, I find them rather suspicious. And people who teach poker to their own children - like the article'a author - are, to me, utterly incomprehensible.
by yjftsjthsd-h | 2025-08-12 01:47:55+00:00
FWIW, as a ... Wayland skeptic/pessimist¹, screen locking does seem to be one place where things actually work and seem more sensible than under X.

¹ It always seems to be just around the next corner. Sixteen years on, it would be nice if we could have feature parity.
by callahad | 2025-08-12 01:47:59+00:00
It's the Online Safety Act. As the government says about the OSA:

"Ofcom is the independent regulator for Online Safety. [...] Ofcom has strong enforcement powers"

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-act

Okay, so what does Ofcom say?

"It doesn’t matter where you or your business is based. The new rules will apply to you (or your business) if the service you provide has a significant number of users in the UK, or if the UK is a target market."

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
by staplung | 2025-08-12 01:48:03+00:00
> Gmail (even without its fallback basic html mode which is gone now anyway)

The fallback HTML mode for web search is still there (two flavors even!). You just have to pretend to be an ancient browser.

Using a user agent for something like Firefox 6 will give you a stripped down but still basically modern look and pretending to be something really ancient will get you another, even more basic, HTML version.

I left long ago but the web search team at Google was always pretty serious about making sure you could access results, even from your ancient Timex Sinclair that you hand-whittled out of mammoth bone or whatever.

Gmail is a different story. The old HTML mode is still there but is hard to get to and is supposedly going to be phased out. IMAP still works though.
by foobarbecue | 2025-08-12 01:49:04+00:00
In your example, you didn't ask the LLM to do any logic. You asked it to translate your logic into code.

Asking an LLM to do logic would be saying something like: "I have a row of a million light switches. They all start off. I start at the beginning and flip on every fourth one. Then I flip on every eighth one, then sixteen, and all the powers of two until I'm over a million. Now I do the same for the powers of three, then four, then five, and so on. How many light switches are on at the end? Do not use any external coding tools for this; use your own reasoning."

Note that the prompt itself is intentionally ambiguous -- a human getting this question should say "I don't understand why you started with every fourth instead of every second. Are you skipping the first integer of every power series or just when the exponent is two?"

When I asked GPT5 to do it, it didn't care about that; instead it complimented me on my "crisp statement of the problem," roughly described a similar problem, and gave a belivable but incorrect answer 270,961 .

I then asked it to write python code to simulate my question. It got the code correct, and said "If you run this, you’ll see it matches the 270,961 result I gave earlier." except, that was a hallucination.

Running the code actually produced 252711.

I guess it went with 270,961 because that was a lexically similar answer to some lexically similar problems in the training data.
by dghughes | 2025-08-12 01:49:42+00:00
Here in Canada there is Bill S-210 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act aka "think of the children".

I don't think the politicians thought of or could conceive of the technological requirements needed if this passes. It's just a knee-jerk bill sponsored by self-professed Conservative Senator Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Conservatives of the CPC party in Canada are much farther right of center more evangelical religious than the old Progressive Conservatives PCs were.

Note that Senators in Canada are not like US Senators.
by jacobgkau | 2025-08-12 01:49:52+00:00
There's nothing wrong with people wanting to make a name for themselves, and nothing will really stop people from wanting to do that. If your frustration is people using a certain technology simply for the sake of it being new, you should be focused on convincing them that isn't necessary to make good/useful tech and make a name for themselves, rather than insulting them for having general ambition.

"People thinking the next big thing needs to be built on bloated, hipster tech stacks is bad" makes sense as an argument/complaint. "People shouldn't be trying to build the next big thing" doesn't make as much sense.
by dylan604 | 2025-08-12 01:50:49+00:00
Just build an entirely different terminal instead of shoeing it into the same building as the terminals for the plebes. Out of sight, out of mind.

The classist risk is already there with the pricing they have for first class seats. By making first class only planes, you can have economy only planes like Spirit. Then nobody would be complaining about first class since nobody would see first class. I see no downsides with this concept!
by jv22222 | 2025-08-12 01:51:39+00:00
I feel exactly the same as the OP and went on a long journey to build something better. 5 versions and many years later I think have something. It's remarkably similar to a text editor.

I just kept peeling back to that because for each product I tried to build I still ended up reverting back to a big ass text file to manage my building of my product!

Only the current version is the one I have been able to stick with. It starts with text editor as the foundation and then adds features (that are hidden) on top of that.

Hoping to release to some friends in Sep.
by parsimo2010 | 2025-08-12 01:51:40+00:00
> It seems like you are taking a lot of effort to create an alternative narrative

I mean, it seems like the parent went through a lot of effort to craft a narrative where they aren’t bad parents despite having CPS called on them four times, their kids were accused of animal abuse, entering people’s houses without permission, and lets them run around town. I get that some neighbors can be intrusive, but either this is one single neighbor that needs to be given a cease and desist order, or there are multiple neighbors who were concerned enough to call the authorities. Either way this story doesn’t really lead me to the conclusion that the parent was fine, but the laws about kid supervision needed to be changed. Something just doesn’t make me fully believe that the parent didn’t do anything wrong.
by kevinwang | 2025-08-12 01:52:10+00:00
A quick take:

> reasonable possibilities are too many to analyze, one is forced to pretty much guess.

You could say the same thing about chess, but an experienced player wouldn't, because they know which candidate moves are reasonable and which lines to delve into through intuition shaped by experience.

Similarly, you might say the same about poker. The possible hands your opponent has are actually quite large, but an experienced player can have a reasonable idea of the possible hands and their probabilities, which may involve eg ignoring most hands as unrealistic and bucketing hands into classes.
by Aurornis | 2025-08-12 01:52:15+00:00
I think that was satire. The entire startup writing world has adopted the idea that you need to ship to actual customers as fast as possible. Developing features in stealth for years is a well-known way to trap yourself into making the wrong thing.

That said, I think the startup book, blog, Tweet, and LinkedIn think piece world went a little overboard with the "ship your MVP early" concept. For a while I was seeing little startups proudly ship things that just didn't work or lacked key features. The only real-world feedback they were getting was that the product was incomplete.

If you burn your early customers badly, you lose precious advocates. In my opinion you're doing the right thing by shipping features for your customers.

It is possible to over-focus on a few vocal customers, though. A common trap for small companies is to get into a relationship with 1 or 2 very vocal customers who will act like they're giving you insights into what the industry wants, but in reality they're just telling you what you want to hear in order to specialize your software for them. It's important to go out and validate the new feature requests with the broader market.
by p1necone | 2025-08-12 01:52:52+00:00
If you ignore the externalities of winning/losing money the thing that the betting brings to poker that is very hard to replace is the impact it has on the players decision making. People playing poker with "funny money" play the game fundamentally differently to the extent it's almost a different game (arguably worse, certainly less predictable) entirely.

If you take the money out of it you have to replace it with something that matters to the players outside of the game itself for it to work.

(On the lack of information - some versions of poker are different than others but imo Texas Holdem has enough shared information that, combined with the knowledge that people really care about winning or losing informing your ability to read them based on their actions enables very strategic gameplay - the existence of a pro scene with players that consistently do well at a high level of play is evidence of this)

As another aside - I see similar complaints about strategy games that include RNG for things like attack values, and I also disagree with that criticism. I would argue that risk management is an interesting skill that's very hard to include in a game with perfect information.
by autoexec | 2025-08-12 01:53:11+00:00
> The reason is that the surveillance state has gotten extremely good at presenting scary scenarios and examples of supposed "disaster averted because we could spy on everyone", or the alternative, "bad thing happened because we couldn't spy on everyone" to politicians in non-public briefings.

Those politicians who are vocal against mass surveillance tend to change their tune the moment they're in office and I doubt they were all intending to go back on their campaign promises from the start or that they were really convinced by horror stories of terrorists told over powerpoint in closed door briefings.

I wouldn't doubt if they were also giving politicians examples of the kind of dirt they already have on them and their families. This is one of the biggest risks of the surveillance state. Endless blackmail material made up of actual skeletons, as well as the resources to install new ones into anyone's closets whenever needed.
by shivasaxena | 2025-08-12 01:54:08+00:00
> Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them?

Yes, that's exactly what will happen and you can even now see examples of unemployed software engineer building successful one-man gigs with the help of AI(not competing).

I think the concept of stable long term jobs as we knew is gone. Which might not be a bad thing.
by prmph | 2025-08-12 01:54:16+00:00
Gemini CLI is terrible. I've had it:

- Repeat more than 20 times the same response to my prompt rejecting its proposed changes; I just kept prompting to see how far it would go before doing something different. Claude Code would quickly guess there is something wrong and try something else or ask what I'm getting at

- Continually refer to outdated versions of files, even after I've told to re-read the files

- Refer to files in a different session on a different machine that have no relevance to what I'm currently doing, presumably simply because I logged in with the same account.

- Randomly crash or enter infinite loops, sometimes soon after starting

- Refuse to read files in a sibling or parent folder

- Fail to understand simple request.

- Propose empty changes

Claude Code is just far better. I only use Gemini CLI for the simplest of tasks
by nelgaard | 2025-08-12 01:54:28+00:00
Or unless the capacity of you harddisk is limited, filling up with huge snap packages.

Or you need something that is broken by snap. I helped a user after thunderbird after an upgrade could no longer open PDF-s in okular. It turned out that the thunderbird dpkg had been replaced with a snap and I spent quite some time trying getting it to work, filed bug reports, etc, before giving up and installing from Mozilla until I replace it all with Debian.
by jacobgkau | 2025-08-12 01:54:36+00:00
What? No. With traditional tech stacks, humans are responsible for tagging and structuring data as they input it. With AI, the argument is that the AI system can do that instead (via inference), meaning humans can input it unstructured. They're both "real."

If you were trying to make a witty comment about AI's purported capabilities not existing/working well, then I personally agree that humans doing it would be smarter and more efficient.
by unethical_ban | 2025-08-12 01:55:00+00:00
So you endorse using federal military resources to secure a city that is not the most dangerous place in the country and that is at generational lows for violent crime?

And you are okay with this in the context of a pedophile rapist felon traitorous president who is bent on vengeance, a famously thin skin and a primate's view of the use of power?
by spauldo | 2025-08-12 01:55:05+00:00
Yes, with a little setup. But never forget that org-mode is the gateway drug of Emacs.

You start using it for the agenda and TODO lists, learn it has spreadsheet functionality that ties in with the arbitrary-precision calculator, start taking notes and exporting them to PDF via LaTeX, writing reports in it with your company letterhead, merging your contacts list, migrating your email into Emacs, and next thing you know you find yourself fifteen pairs of parentheses deep in a custom elisp function that tweaks the date format for that one manager that insists on yy/dd/mm whenever you send your weekly progress report.

Not that I'd know anything about that.
by class3shock | 2025-08-12 01:55:33+00:00
TLDR: We changed our plane design and lost range, we used ai in helping tweak our engine design to get back our range, we were successful in our computer models.

This article is just another from what are fundamentally hardware companies proclaiming how they're implementing "ai" and it's doing so much to help to gather more stock/venture investors but with no actual substance.

Everything he discusses taking into account are things that airplane/engine manufacturers already do and it doesn't require ai, just some python or god forbid, an excel sheet.

His statement about the relationship between airplane and engine manufacturers is factual correct but so blatantly wrong. You think GE/PW and Boeing/Airbus engineering don't work closely with each other when a new model is being developed? You think either would risk hundreds of millions and years of development without talking to each other? How does anyone take this guy seriously enough to give him millions of dollars?

"This close approach gave rise to mkBoom, our proprietary airplane design software. Initially created in a simpler form for XB-1, mkBoom has evolved significantly and is now pivotal to designing our Overture airliner."

This is the same overture airframe that supposedly had it's final design released in July of 2022? And was supposed to be rolled out in 2025? And have it's first commercial passengers in 2029? (Ref. 1)

But apparently 18 months ago the structure was being redesigned in such a way that caused a 1000 mile range loss (that is described as "subtle" fuselage change)? And in response to that last year they completely redesigned the engines and regained that 1000 miles of lost range... Sure.

More importantly, given the FAA states they a new aircraft takes 5-9 years to certify (Ref 2.) it seems the 2029 target is not viable any longer right? So are you going to tell American or should I?

Ref. 1 https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2022/American-Airlines...

Ref. 2 https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certific...
by john01dav | 2025-08-12 01:55:36+00:00
If these claims are accurate, then the solution is obvious: elected officials who are themselves domain experts in this. They can then explain to their colleagues why these arguments are bullshit.

But, I expect that that won't help because your claims don't tell the while story. Most representatives don't act in good faith and like the government that they're a part of having such power.
by unethical_ban | 2025-08-12 01:58:29+00:00
Counterpoint: As I understand it, t was Israeli military incompetence and Netanyahu's strategy of backing Hamas over the PA that caused Oct 7.

Oct 7 will never happen again because it shouldn't have been able to happen in the first place had Israel been less busy fomenting Palestinian extremism in Gaza, and beating/killing Palestinians in the West Bank.

There is no justification for the conditions in Gaza today. All I see are Israelis relishing in the suffering of another group of people. And I see Israeli extremists continuing to conflate Israeli Nationalism with Judaism, so that any criticism of Israel is called anti-Semitic.
by kmicinski | 2025-08-12 01:58:41+00:00
Seems potentially interesting to explore what would be required to store durable continuations. Feels very related to incrementalization and provenance, as you can see materializing a continuation to disk (whatever storage backend) requiring dependence tracking to do anything other than simply snapshotting the whole program state. I am just spitballing though, not sure if anyone has actually tried this.
by mockingloris | 2025-08-12 01:58:44+00:00
Say, your link requires gmail auth and I don't even know if I like it or no.

Unsolicited advice:

- Show a small subset (10 from the "...hundreds of tini ASCII creatures") for people to see. Then if user wants more, tell them to authenticate. - Gmail only? ...

│ └── Dey well; Be well
by hansvm | 2025-08-12 01:59:37+00:00
Sure:

- There are how many computer architectures? A compile-once-run-anywhere binary looks closer to shipping a fancy interpreter with your code than shipping a compiled project. Runtime bytecode generation is one technique for making that fast.

- More generally, anything you don't know till runtime generates a huge amount of bloat if you handle it at compile-time. Imagine, e.g., a UI for dragging and dropping ML components to create an architecture. For as much compute as you're about to pour into training, even for very simple problems, it's worth something that looks like a compilation pass to appropriately fuse everything together. You could probably get away with literally shipping a compiler, but bytecode generation is a reasonable solution too.

- Some things are literally impossible at compile-time without boxing and other overhead. E.g., once upon a time I made a zero-cost-abstraction library allowing you to specify an ML computational graph using the type system (most useful for problems where you're not just doing giant matmuls all day). It was in a language where mutually recursive generics are lazily generated, so you're able to express arbitrary nth derivatives still in the type system, still with zero overhead. What you can't do though is create a runtime program capable of creating arbitrary derivatives; there must be an upper bound for any finite-sized binary (for sufficiently complex starting functions) -- you could cap it at 2nd derivatives or 10th or whatever, but there would have to be a cap. If you move that to runtime though then you can have your cake and eat it too, less the cost of compiling (i.e., bytecode generation) at runtime.

Etc. It's a tradeoff between binary size (which might have to be infinite in the compiled case) and runtime overhead (having to "compile" for each new kind of input you find).
by webpolis | 2025-08-12 02:00:28+00:00
As I started building agentic workflows, I found myself frequently creating, improving, and tweaking prompts by editing hardcoded strings and managing text files. I realized this process lacked the crucial software engineering principles that make any project more robust and reliable: versioning, modularity, maintenance, and testing. One of the most important parts of AI agent development is the system prompt, as the success of the workflow's execution depends on it. So, why was I handling this critical step with such a rudimentary approach? With that in mind, I designed a framework that helps AI engineers build an agent's mind in a composable, shareable, and consistent way. The ultimate goal is to build a public repository for sharing prompt components that anyone can use to shape intelligence.
by raydev | 2025-08-12 02:01:04+00:00
Sorta related, I was thinking recently: after much personal experience with the terrible PR review performance over the last couple years, and the recent blog posts covering terrible performance across GitHub features, I remembered that GitHub is a Microsoft product now.

So I expect everything about the GitHub experience to degrade to (awful, slow, poorly designed) Teams/Outlook quality, since Microsoft doesn't really care about your experience as long as you're locked in and you can eventually accomplish what your job requires of you.
ASK: Could AI Replace the Slush Pile Intern?
by richardatlarge | 2025-08-12 02:02:30+00:00
A common lament of new fiction authors is the horribly named "slush pile," where submissions sit waiting for a lit agency "intern" to look at the length of the first few paragraphs and bin the ms. of the next Zadie Smith or Thomas Pynchon

So I wonder, could an LLM do a lot better?