MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrangle | 2025-08-12 14:02:34+00:00
Born and raised, and still living in an area that you likely wouldn't. You have no idea.

To be clear, not advocating for the military on the streets.

However, the people who do sympathize with that will forever increase as ineffectiveness in policing crime does.

If the military is on the streets, and there is broad support for it, then objectively speaking it's because we're at a tipping point of imbalance in policing crime.

The question then becomes, even with the military outside of their windows, would the people who start stuttering the word "fascist" in response have hindsight regret in not better enabling civilian policing to inhibit crime?

Or will they continue to deny the tipping point?

At what point is undermining of civilian police the same thing as advancing us toward military streets?

No one can have everything. If a balance isn't kept, then aberrations in norms will begin to occur. Going either way.
by montroser | 2025-08-12 14:02:40+00:00
The solution is already here, and it's totally fine: Use utility classes just for layout (margin, padding, etc); use scoped styles for your components; use a small set of globally available classes for styling native elements (buttons, etc) -- and you're good!

Vue and others have had scoped styles for a long time. Now @scope is spec'd with improving browser support. All this pain in TFA is from people flailing with all of the many bad options that pervade the React ecosystem.
Show HN: I built a vibe agent builder with deployment (GPT-5-mini powered)
by Radeen1 | 2025-08-12 14:02:46+00:00
You just write the agent you need for any agentic framework e.g. "write research writing agent in Agno/ write summarizer agent in llamaindex" and then it will create agent and automatically deploy locally the agent and give you an agent testing page. Failed with previous GPT models and claude is expensive. Insanely stable with gpt-5-mini
by zwaps | 2025-08-12 14:03:25+00:00
I have applied O3 pro on unpublished abandoned research of mine that was never published and lives in an intersection that is as entirely novel as it's uninteresting.

O3 pro (but not O3) was successfully able to apply reasoning and math to this domain in interesting ways, much like an expert researcher in these areas would.

Again, the field and the problem is with 100% certainty OOD of the data.

However, the techniques and reasoning methods are of course learned from data. But that's the point, right?
by quotemstr | 2025-08-12 14:03:43+00:00
Here we go. Let's spin the wheel of front-end framework fortune once again. The article correctly identifies that CSS isn't the problem, but just giving up on elegance is premature.

IME, CSS is actually _just fine_ and would do as well as anything else at the job. The real problems arise from:

- People just not being aware of the affordances of modern CSS (like nested selectors, variables, fancy grid layout stuff, etc.). Of course CSS is going is suck if you insist on living with CSS3 like it's 1998.

- Inherent domain contradictions. "I want isolated styling!" "I want consistent theming!" and like the dog in the "no take, only throw!" meme, "I don't want interfaces. I want my styling to be isolated except when I don't want it to be!"

CSS is actually pretty elegant. We should be using declarative, composable configuration (e.g. CUE) in other domains too.
by jones1618 | 2025-08-12 14:04:07+00:00
Sounds good! My only observation is that, wherever possible, make it easier to see/scan-for text content.

So my text gets lost a bit in: @a-bunch-of-markup My Text is here@

Maybe add a visual delimiter, so: @a-bunch-of-markup:My Text is here:@

To my eye, this makes my content text stand out more clearly.
by nullocator | 2025-08-12 14:04:40+00:00
This sounds like homophobic baiting but I'll bite.

Perhaps they want protection for being forced to testify against their spouse? Perhaps they want the benefits of being able to share bank account? Maybe marriage provides access to better and necessary health insurance. Theres also inheritance, SS benefits, etc. Perhaps they are christians and want to get married as a religious thing. Perhaps they just love each other and want to be together forever legally in the eyes of the law. Or maybe, like me, they want to be gay married purely because they think it would make you uncomfortable.
by arilgomez | 2025-08-12 14:04:52+00:00
In this captivating talk, Dharmesh Shah, co-founder of HubSpot, takes you on a transformative journey through the highs and lows of building one of the most successful inbound marketing and sales software companies. Dharmesh shares the mistakes made and valuable lessons learned along the way, offering a unique insight into the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in the tech industry.
by ForHackernews | 2025-08-12 14:05:00+00:00
Choosing Forth isn't simply an affectation, it has some desirable technical properties:

> Forth is, to my knowledge, the most compact language allowing high level constructs. It is so compact that Collapse OS' Forth implementation achieves self-hosting with about the same amount of resources than its assembler counterpart!

https://collapseos.org/forth.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23450287
by Quarrel | 2025-08-12 14:05:13+00:00
While I am somewhat entranced by the ideal, presumably the realities of SEO and how most of the web is funded would put a stop to it?

This is somewhat like the leap Figma has made. They were able to build their own walled-garden, offer value in it, and not have to worry about SEO. Most of the web is not in that position.

I'd imagine we'd be better off with more such fragmentation, though?

The internet was built to allow fragmentation, of protocols, of tech, of connections. It is just that, of course, most sites must flow to where the easy $ are. Let's just hope that enough good sites can escape the pull of easy $.
by snovymgodym | 2025-08-12 14:05:18+00:00
> C is not portable in practice. Almost every C program and library that does anything interesting has to be manually ported to every platform.

I'm guessing you mean that every cross-platform C codebase ends up being plastered in cascading preprocessor code to deal with OS and architecture differences. Sure that's true, you still have to do some porting work regardless of the language you chose.

But honestly, is there any language more portable than C? I struggle to come up with one.

If someone told me "I need a performant language that targets all major architectures and operating systems, but also maybe I want to run it on DOS, S390X, an old Amiga I have in my closet, and any mystery-meat microcontroller I can find." then really wouldn't have a better answer for them than C89.

If C isn't portable then nothing is.
by burnte | 2025-08-12 14:05:32+00:00
I totally agree, maybe 1 in 100 web pages actually NEED any of the code they run. Mostly it's reinventing the wheel. Where a flat site with fixed HTML and pretty CSS would be fine, they add a splash page so they can show a logo, they'll break navigation and reimplement the browser inside the page with JS so you can't use the back button, they'll style everything on the fly when nothing is dynamic, etc. Nonsense.
by ndriscoll | 2025-08-12 14:06:11+00:00
Beyond the fact that almost all web "apps" are actually honest documents, let's not forget that operating systems 20 years ago were more "highly interactive, component-based, state-driven, design-system-heavy applications" and still globally (across all applications at once) themeable. So it seems to me that the problem is that modern UI in fact has lost the concept of modular components. e.g. every time someone comes out with light/dark mode as a feature, I can't help but feel like it's an insider joke that's been running so long that the new kids think it's serious. Every single application used to have a more powerful version of that by default. There were GUIs for users that were simple enough to find and use that my 90 year old grandma had customized the theme on her windows 98 machine.
by NoMoreNicksLeft | 2025-08-12 14:06:36+00:00
I think that person's title is Designated Patsy. If your idea of justice is them finding someone who's willing to gamble that they won't be called out before their term is up in return for fat paychecks until it happens or they can "move on", I don't think we have compatible senses of justice.

>This isn’t complicated.

Not only is it complicated, it is deliberately complicated expressly for the purpose of making it impossible for justice to occur.
by onlyrealcuzzo | 2025-08-12 14:07:01+00:00
Aren't most major LLMs moving to an architecture where the model is made up of tons of smaller models?

There's a mountain of reasons why this makes sense from a cost perspective, and seemingly it does also for quality, too, as the newer models train substantially more cheaply and still outperform the older models.

Naively, this seems like it would be relevant.
by lowsong | 2025-08-12 14:07:09+00:00
Perhaps this is a difference in terminology, but in no way do you need a LLM for fuzzy search. Semantic search, fuzzy keyword search, and text to speech have existed for years and predate the technology for an LLM. In your use-case, do you really need a chatbot to "ask the video" about this, wouldn't a "search in video" function that does the same thing be better?
by _fat_santa | 2025-08-12 14:07:15+00:00
Easy. It's just about any react/angular/vue based site written these days. Take GMail, Jira, your health insurance portal, TurboTax, and a littany of other sites.

Practically every one of these uses components, internal state, and design systems to make the site highly interactive, just about every "web app" falls into this category.
by wujerry2000 | 2025-08-12 14:07:23+00:00
This is a really important question.

I definitely think as companies begin optimizing for an "Agent first" economy, they will start figuring out how to optimize their sites for agent traffic.

They definitely could do this themselves, but I imagine there will be some engineering work/expertise around building RL envs that they might want to partner with an external provider to do it.

ALSO the value of Westworld isn't any standalone env but many stringed together for long trajectory workflows. That is why they may be inclined to work with another provider to do it.

Those are just our thoughts though, will see how the market plays out
by tombert | 2025-08-12 14:07:26+00:00
I mean this is getting into splitting-hairs territory, but I would argue that rebinding is a form of mutation; the variable i is changing as far as the programmer is concerned.

If I were to write

var i = new Obj(2) // do stuff 1 i = new Obj(3) // do stuff 2

Then yes, that’s technically rebinding and not directly mutating the value in memory, but from “do stuff 2’s” perspective the value has changed. It still acts more or less the same as if it had directly changed.
by abustamam | 2025-08-12 14:07:38+00:00
With NOSQL becoming more ubiquitous (for better or worse), it's not unfathomable that someone simply never had an opportunity to do something as simple write a join between two tables. Someone replied to my comment and taught me how in 5 lines of code. I read it and I'm like, oh that makes sense. Cool. I won't remember it exactly but I understand it. I wouldn't hold it against a front-end developer who's only ever worked with Vue to understand what happens when a React node rerenders.

My point is that there are acceptable levels of abstraction in all parts of software. Some companies will have different tolerances for understanding of that abstraction. Maybe they want a front-end dev to understand the CSS generated from tailwind. Or maybe they want them to know exactly what happens when a React node is rerendered. Or maybe the company doesn't care as long as the person is demonstrably productive and efficient at building stuff. What some consider basic knowledge can be considered irrelevant to others. Whether or not that has lasting consequences is to be seen, but that just brings us full circle back to the original problem at hand (is it good that people can vibe code something and not understand the code it generates)
by trapexit | 2025-08-12 14:07:59+00:00
LLMs are not a security barrier. LLMs cannot be a security barrier. They cannot form part of a security barrier. You must place the security barrier between the LLM and the backend systems, the same as you would place it between your web or mobile app and your backend systems. Assume that if the LLM agent can use a service, the human interacting with the agent can also call that service with arbitrary parameters.

The tools you're providing to your LLM agent must never have privileges greater than those you intend to afford to the user who is prompting / interacting with the agent.

You want to use an LLM to make a customer service bot? Sure, you can do that. But that bot MUST NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be allowed to perform any action you wouldn't let the customer do himself. If it can read your CRM, you need to scope that access to exactly the same access you'd be willing to give the customer directly. Can it cancel orders? That tool must not be able to cancel any order you wouldn't let the customer cancel himself through your app or website.

Don't treat an LLM as if it could replace a human customer service agent, or a human researcher, or a human underwriter, or a human manager. Never make the mistake of believing that the LLM, with any level of clever prompt engineering or attempts at input sanitization, will be "good enough" at not getting fooled. If you trust it with the keys to the kingdom, in the same way that you'd trust a human with those keys, it's a matter of when—not if—you're going to get pwn3d.

Of course, holding this principle, if your autonomous agent can access the web, you must assume that literally anyone on the internet can call any of that agent's tools with arbitrary parameters.
by pc86 | 2025-08-12 14:08:21+00:00
"It's harder to convince other people to pay for this for me" is an insane criticism. Not every AI model needs a premium account, you can even run many excellent models locally if you don't want to pay for an internet connection.

At some point you just have to accept that yes things are easier if you have a little bit of spending money for things. That's not "sad" it's a basic fact of life.
by gottorf | 2025-08-12 14:08:31+00:00
> Doesn't seem like it's that hard to get a conviction. The US has a sociology problem, not a difficulty getting convictions problem.

There are more people in prisons in America because more people commit crimes in America, compared to those other places. And more people commit crimes than are caught and convicted. If the US was in fact a police state, those incarceration rates would be even higher.

> there is utterly nothing exceptional about DC

The subject under discussion is Trump having the National Guard to perform law enforcement duties. DC is indeed exceptional in that it is the only jurisdiction where he could do that.

> it's miles safer than virtually anywhere in methville, Appalachia

Factually untrue. The state of West Virginia, the archetype of "Methville, Appalachia", has a lower homicide rate than its vastly richer neighbor Virginia (almost twice as high of a median household income).

> Should career criminals face fewer reprieves? Absolutely.

> Is this an easy fix that Big Brain Trump is going to solve? LOL, no, give me a break.

Given what we know of recidivism, Trump's brain does not need to be all that big to make a noticeable difference. In fact, you already touched upon the solution: just don't keep releasing multiple-times convicted violent criminals back into the population. A tiny fraction of the population is responsible for the majority of violent crimes. Just keep them away from the rest of society and you'll have made a big difference in the lives of the less well-off who, for the most part, have to live next to these people.
by pyrale | 2025-08-12 14:08:42+00:00
It really depends on what you call CRUD, but for instance, in the past, I've had frontends hiding the crud behind more "friendly" gestures. For instance, a write such as rescheduling a sale could be done with drag&drop, reads would feed a local store of events/sales that could be browsed either as a workweek panel of which sales are happening, or as a monthly calendar aggregating sales and showing which day is a "hot" day and which day is quiet and needs more blockbusters to drive sales. Add in search features, graphs of forecasted sales and a news feed on the sales a specific user was managing.

It's not that complex or fancy compared to what can be found in b2c, but it's not just a crud where users are directly tasked to update values in fields either. And yes, it could have been a crud, but I believe our users would have been worse off.
by adwn | 2025-08-12 14:09:06+00:00
> I for one am glad that compilers can assume that things that can't happen according to the language do in fact not happen and don't bloat my programs with code to handle them.

Yes, unthinkable happenstances like addition on fixed-width integers overflowing! According to the language, signed integers can't overflow, so code like the following:

int new_offset = current_offset + 16; if (new_offset < current_offset) return -1; // Addition overflowed, something's wrong

can be optimized to the much leaner

int new_offset = current_offset + 16;

Well, I sure am glad the compiler helpfully reduced the bloat in my program!
by JKCalhoun | 2025-08-12 14:09:28+00:00
The Pencil appears to put down the foreground color, the Eraser appears to clear to the background color.

Working at the pixel level, it is extremely useful to be able to "toggle" a pixel without switching tools. MacPaint (for example) would use the foreground color if you click on a pixel whose color is not the foreground color. If you start your Pencil drawing (click) on a pixel that is the foreground color, the Pencil draws with the background color instead.

Also, a modifier (like the Option key), is a nice way to also specify the background color for the pencil (regardless of the initial pixel clicked on).
by piva00 | 2025-08-12 14:09:32+00:00
> In fact driving out competition is rarely the goal at all.

Driving out competition is definitely a goal, the further you can snowball that makes your company a much more attractive investment since your competition will be bleeding money, attrition is definitely used as a tactic by VCs when a startup gets traction. Hell, it's one of the arguments they use to run further rounds of investments to others "this startup is very well capitalised and the competition has 1/10th of their funds, investing elsewhere is a losing proposition".

> Instead the goal is usually to reduce the barrier to people trying the thing - especially when it is a developer API which you hope developers will incorporate into their product.

I thought we were talking about unicorns such as Uber, AirBnb, etc., not some dev startup packaging APIs to serve other startups which is a whole other incestuous industry.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-08-12 14:10:26+00:00
They are using leverage via futures contracts to grow their portfolio.

The average person would be unlikely to be able to stomach holding a contract as each one moves the same as holding ~$250,000 of the S&P500. You get this by putting ~$25k down. A 10% move down and you are wiped, a 10% move up and you double your money.

However they do offer micro contracts which are $25,000 of S&P500 for ~$2,500.
by croon | 2025-08-12 14:10:31+00:00
1) DEI can be done badly, of course, and in an ideal world would be unnecessary, I think anyone on either side of any spectrum wants merit over anything else, but for various historical, systemic, as well as unconscious bias [1], this has not been the case, statistically. DEI on the ~interviewer~ side, not the interviewee side can and has addressed [1]. I fail to see the downside. The only way to claim it's unfair would be to confess that [1] is real, meaning some solution is needed, meaning DEI has done ~some~ good [2].

I agree that quotas are certainly bad in principle, and many times in practice, but I have seen no credible claim where the status quo is a meritocracy, leading to the blatant showing in the current admin.

2) Posit a merit-based test where any appointees of this administration would score better than their corresponding appointee of the previous (or any previous) administration.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism

[2] https://interviewing.io/blog/i-love-meritocracy-but-all-the-...
by MrNeRF | 2025-08-12 14:10:47+00:00
This started as a $1700 bounty to optimize the CUDA Gaussian Splatting renderer. The PR delivers impressive performance improvements with a 2.4× speedup. Training time for 7 scenes from the mipnerf360 dataset dropped from 50 minutes to ~20 minutes without impacting final splat quality.

Original bounty: https://github.com/MrNeRF/gaussian-splatting-cuda/issues/135 PR: https://github.com/MrNeRF/gaussian-splatting-cuda/pull/245
by sapphire42 | 2025-08-12 14:11:11+00:00
The comment you're replying to is 100% AI-generated. How does obviously LLM-generated content continually make it to the front of HN, and why in God's name are you being downvoted for calling this out??

"...a fascinating approach..." (LLMs think everything is fascinating)

"...they're essentially having a generalist learn from a committee of specialists..." (analogies, analogies)

"...where APIs are undocumented, partial failures are common, and user input is full of ambiguity..." (typical AI rule of three template with semantically similar parameters that contribute nothing to the overall meaning)
by quotemstr | 2025-08-12 14:11:14+00:00
The article is neither vapid nor pointless. You're just reading it as a technical proposal when the author didn't mean it to be one. Articles like this are meant to be nucleating points for vibe shifts, usually in the form of a preference cascade.

Remember how the similarly vapid and pointless Agile Manifesto mysteriously got everyone talking about writing software more flexibly? You're not looking at technical engineering. You're looking at social engineering.

In this instance, if the vibe shift attempt is successful (most are not) we'll stop whining about how much CSS sucks and blaming it for our failures and start talking about how to fill CSS's functionality gaps and make it do what practitioners actually need.
by d4rkn0d3z | 2025-08-12 14:11:16+00:00
Are you sure you are not comparing to human unreason?

Most of what humans think of as reason is actually "will to power". The capability to use our faculties in a way that produces logical conclusions seems like an evolutionary accident, an off-lable use of the brain's machinery for complex social interaction. Most people never learn to catch themselves doing the former when they intended to engage in the latter, some don't know the difference. Fortunately, the latter provides a means of self-correction, the research here hopes to elucidate whether an LLM based reasoning system has the same property.

In other words, given consistent application of reason I would expect a human to eventually draw logically correct conclusions, decline to answer, rephrase the question, etc. But with an LLM, should I expect a non-determisitic infinite walk though plausible nonsense? I expect reaaoning to converge.
by donatj | 2025-08-12 14:11:18+00:00
All of those examples boil down to very simple forms, web 1.0 style forms. CRUD.

Fill out an email form, hit submit. Fill out my tax form, hit submit. Fill out a ticket form, hit submit. It's prettied up CRUD, but it's CRUD.

There's no high levels of interactivity, nor any sort of need for client side state in any of them.