MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JustExAWS | 2025-09-06 19:47:35+00:00
> You have to decide whether you want the society to provide safety nets through healthcare, strong labor protections etc. or not.

My argument is simply that the only “labor protections” the government should enforce on private enterprise is that a company can’t actively harm employees - OSHA protections, discrimination etc.

> And yes, it's the literal job of a taxi company to make sure its drivers work a healthy amount of hours. In Uber's case it meant that it had to pay drivers enough money to cover the costs Uber offloaded onto them, and enough money left over so that they didn't have to drive 18-20 hours a day to make ends meet.

It’s up to individuals to decide whether the tradeoffs are worth it. It’s not the responsibility of private industry to calculate what a “living wage” is for an individual. Uber never put a gun to anyone’s head to force them to drive for Uber. If anything the government should enforce how long someone can drive because it puts others in danger. But does the government stop people from working two jobs that might add up to 20 hours? What should happen when the driver drives for Uber, Lyft and DoorDash?

The illegal practices at least in New York were around taxi medallion monopoly where taxi drivers were getting in hundreds of thousands in debt to own them for the right to drive.

As far as not everyone being Jason Snell, there were other freelance writers and contractors like truck drivers who had to leave California to save their business

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/i-had-leave-california-save-...

It even affected 1099 (as opposed to W2) tech workers who were contractors.
by jancsika | 2025-09-06 19:47:37+00:00
If you can travel near the speed of light, the trip back to a future era of Earth would almost always be more exciting than stepping onto a distant barren planet.

Edit: "back to a future era" hehe-- i.e., the trip away and then back to Earth at near-light speeds will always put you way further into the future than you would have been just staying put on Earth. At the current rate of technological change, you're guaranteed some exciting new changes that will almost always be more exciting and surprising than whatever planet you visited.
by iLemming | 2025-09-06 19:48:36+00:00
> Programming is a tiny part of game development.

Yeah, jut like writing is a tiny part of book publishing. What the heck are you even talking about? Programming is absolutely fundamental to game development - it's literally what makes games exist and function.

I'm not talking about "revolutionizing" anything, but maybe you haven't noticed how Unity democratized gamedev and how GDScript made game logic accessible. There is absolutely a sizable chunk of the market for the Lisp-based gamedev - look at Lua/Fennel gaming community - LÖVE2D, Pico-8, Defold engine, etc.

Having performant Clojure option (which Fennel ain't - it's only "like" Clojure) would be absolutely wonderful news.
by javanonymous | 2025-09-06 19:49:18+00:00
I think it has a lot to do with work culture. Many tend to mimic what others are doing in order to not stick out.

At my previous job some were able to change that by consistently using "modern" features of Java. It inspired others to change and eventually we ended up with a good code base.

Be the one to start the change by implementing new features using good code. This will give others "permission" to do the same. Also try to give soft suggestions in code reviews or pair programming of simpler ways to do it (don't push too hard)

At my current job all of us were eager to try the latest features from the start, so we never had to convince new hires.
by vladdoster | 2025-09-06 19:49:55+00:00
Few questions:

1. Are you seeing a lower number of production hot fixes? 2. Have you tried other models? Or thought about using Output of different models and using combining the output if they have a delta. 3. Other than time & cost, what benchmarks in terms of software are considered (i.e., less hot fixes, etc.)?

This is really cool, btw
by azemetre | 2025-09-06 19:51:22+00:00
No, public schooling is something that lifts people out of poverty. 100 years ago public schooling only want to 6th or 8th grade in most states.

Equating government welfare programs to better society with for profit systems is frankly disgusting. One has provided real empowerment and nearly erased illiteracy rates, the only is simply a system used to extract wealth for a few individuals and not society.

I do not trust any system that has shown to be a degrading experience to raising literacy or teaching others to critically think for themselves.
by ben_w | 2025-09-06 19:51:38+00:00
I agree that if Tesla's representation of what their system is seeing is accurate, it's a bad system.

The human brain's vision system makes pretty much the exact opposite mistake, which is a fun trick that is often exploited by stage magicians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3iPrBrGSJM&pp

And is also emphasised by driving safety awareness videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRFMuGBP15U

I wonder what we'd seem like to each other, if we could look at each other's perception as directly as we can look at an AI's perception?

Most of us don't realise how much we mispercieve because it doesn't feel different in the moment to percieve incorrectly; it can't feel different in the moment, because if it did, we'd notice we were mispercieving.
by tialaramex | 2025-09-06 19:51:44+00:00
This means C++ is riddled with types that have unrelated "I'm empty" state inside them rather than this being relegated to a separate wrapper type. It's Tony's Billion Dollar Mistake but smeared across an entire ecosystem.

The smart pointer std::unique_ptr<T> is an example of this, sometimes people will say it's basically a boxed T, so analogous to Rust's Box<T> but it isn't quite, it's actually equivalent to Option<Box<T>>. And if we don't want to allow None? Too bad, you can't express that in C++

But you're right that C++ people soldier on, there aren't many C++ types where this nonsense unavoidably gets in your face. std::variant's magic valueless_by_exception is such an example and it's not at all uncommon for C++ people to just pretend it can't happen rather than take it square on.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-06 19:51:49+00:00
WWI: “Hold my beer.”

The big issue with WWI, seemed to be staggeringly incompetent generals. This appears to have been on all sides. Maybe the Americans were better, but that just may be because they didn’t have time to get bogged down. I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics.

I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics, that didn’t do well, against machine guns and semiauto rifles.
by masklinn | 2025-09-06 19:52:07+00:00
> Granted, these repercussions of these defaults also result in (in my opinion) verbose language constructs like iter, into_iter, iter_mut ↩

Note that assuming the into_iter comes from IntoIterator that’s what the for loop invokes to get an iterator from an iterable. So

for lr in LoadRequests.into_iter() {

Is completely unnecessary verbosity,

for lr in LoadRequests {

Will do the exact same thing. And the stdlib will generally implement the trait with the relevant semantics on shared and unique references so

for lr in LoadRequests.iter_mut()

Can generally be written

for lr in &mut LoadRequests

So you rarely need to invoke these methods outside of functional pipelines if you dislike them (some prefer them for clarity / readability).
by smcin | 2025-09-06 19:52:28+00:00
What did he do that was deemed suspicious? Send a large number of friend requests very quickly after joining (<24hrs? 1wk?)? Follow requests? Upvotes? Log on from multiple devices in multiple locations? Put third-party links in his bio or profile?

(LinkedIn ramped up anti-bot/inauthentic-user heuristics like that a few years ago. Sadly they are necessary. Near-impossible for heuristics to distinguish between real humans with inauthentic or suspiciously commercial behavior.)
by Someone1234 | 2025-09-06 19:52:34+00:00
That's a good point, but people do need to keep in mind that many engineered systems with three points of reference have three identical points of reference. That's why it works so well, a common frame of reference (i.e. you can compare via simple voting).

For example jet aircraft commonly have three pitot static tubes, and you can just compare/contrast the data to look for the outlier. It works, and it works well.

If you tried to do that with e.g. LIDAR, vision, and radar with no common point of reference, solving for trust/resolving disagreements is an incredibly difficult technical challenge. Other variations (e.g. two vision + one LIDAR), does not really make it much easier either.

Tie-breaking during sensor fusion is a billion+ dollar problem, and will always be.
by Nitsua007 | 2025-09-06 19:53:07+00:00
Small correction: LiDAR can’t literally see around corners — it’s still a line-of-sight sensor. What it can do is build an extremely precise 3D point cloud of what it can see, in all lighting conditions, and with far less susceptibility to “hallucinations” from things like glare, shadows, or visual artifacts that trip up purely vision-based systems.

The problem you’re describing — phantom braking, random wiper sweeps — is exactly what happens when the perception system’s “eyes” (cameras) feed imperfect data into a “brain” (compute + AI) that has no independent cross-check from another modality. Cameras are amazing at recognizing texture and color but they’re passive sensors, easily fooled by lighting, contrast, weather, or optical illusions. LiDAR adds active depth sensing, which directly measures distance and object geometry rather than inferring it.

But LiDAR alone isn’t the endgame either. The real magic happens in sensor fusion — combining LiDAR, radar, cameras, GNSS, and ultrasonic so each sensor covers the others’ blind spots, and then fusing data at the perception level. This reduces false positives, filters out improbable hazards before they trigger braking, and keeps the system robust in edge cases.

And there’s another piece that rarely gets mentioned in these debates: connected infrastructure. If the vehicle can also receive data from roadside units, traffic signals, and other connected objects (V2X), it doesn’t have to rely solely on its onboard sensors. You’re effectively extending the vehicle’s situational awareness beyond its physical line of sight.

Vision-only autonomy is like trying to navigate with one sense while ignoring the others. LiDAR + fusion + connectivity is like having multiple senses and a heads-up from the world around you.
by fzeroracer | 2025-09-06 19:53:13+00:00
> If you're a young ambitious above-average person, and you're going to listen to people claiming this is "bad", please also compare your to their privileges: race, geographic position, net worth of your family, etc...

I grew up dirt poor from a family of fishermen that were bankrupt before I even left highschool. 996 is bad, companies are taking advantage of people and it needs to be stomped out like a fire waiting to burn.
by codingdave | 2025-09-06 19:54:00+00:00
You don't change how they are estimating, you change how you react to their estimates. This is the entire reason scrum estimates with story points, not hours/days -- so that you let the team estimate however they want, observe how many points actually get done for a few sprints, then load future sprints to that level.

And yes, if devs are off for a few days, do some arithmetic to shrink the expected velocity by whatever ratio of time you have missing people.
by McAlpine5892 | 2025-09-06 19:54:15+00:00
Sunscreen is, overall, a terrible experience. Five or six years ago I started getting into sun-protective clothing after running into issues with vitiligo. Clothing is vastly superior from every angle.

1. It’s easy to apply. Slip a sun hoodie over the head - protected.

2. Because it’s so easy to apply it always goes on when needed.

3. It’s impossible to miss spots or under-apply in certain areas. If fabric covers the skin, you’re solid.

4. This is subjective but it’s more comfortable. On a sunny 90F day with a high UV, direct sun on skin feels like sticking your hand on a hot skillet.

My fun fact for all this is that the Bedouins wear black robes in the desert heat. Not white. It’s counterintuitively cooler for the wearer [0]. Sunscreen is a great modern invention with its use cases, but humans have been wearing clothing for eons to ward off the sun for a reason. The only real downside is that you may look a bit silly when everyone else is lathered in sunscreen wearing very little clothing.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/283373a0.pdf
by opan | 2025-09-06 19:54:19+00:00
In IRC you'd just paste the relevant message or part of a message you're replying to after a greater than sign and then post your thought in the following message. Works totally fine. I have used IRC, XMPP, and Matrix to chat with some of the same close friends, I don't find actual replies to be necessary, and I think they kinda disrupt the flow when used too much.
by didgetmaster | 2025-09-06 19:54:44+00:00
So we have 40 years of data that clearly shows that advocating for reasonable tax rates for the wealthy "doesn't work"? I world love to see the detailed analysis that proves that!

Even the most staunch conservative wants the rich to pay their "fair share" of taxes. The only legitimate debate is about what constitutes 'fair'. The flat tax advocates will at least give you a real number (10%, 15%, or even 20%). Progressives will never give you a number. Why?
by mistrial9 | 2025-09-06 19:57:23+00:00
yes mostly agree but, this has "ten blind men and an elephant" feel to it, also. Long, long ago (in Internet years) it was not clear that certain code, standard, stacks and practices would survive let along prevail, facing slick marketing, inside contract practices (MSFT etc) and the drumbeat of quarterly results reports. "open source" software was a go-board move.. to gain traction in a way that was not easily reversible, given the motivations and then, the time frame -- recall the Silicon Valley motto in the extreme-expansion years "it is faster to adapt an existing stack and then compete, than to start by developing your own before you can compete" .. later changed to "open source your business complement".

So "win" is a multi-layered definition. Business, big business and Corporations win in economic terms often because, they have economic objectives and then execute them. Authors scratch an itch, or finish a college degree, or move on to join another band. none of those things have the aggregate, countable result that a quarterly income statement has.. in 2025, what code is stable, generally available and (often) maintained? is that "winning" ? other corollaries possible..
by cycomanic | 2025-09-06 19:57:23+00:00
That's misinterpreting what the previous poster is saying. They are saying that hyperscalers owning significant portions of the Internet (and using lots of projects without giving back) is a bigger threat to the sustainability of OSS.

Now I would argue that the sustainability of OSS is more important at least in the context of an lwn article. That doesn't mean one can not argue that rug pulls are the bigger threat, but that's not what you accused the previous poster off.
by tekla | 2025-09-06 19:58:07+00:00
This is an incredible misunderstanding of WW1.

While there were some generals that were a bit too resistant to changing strategy when it might have seemed reasonable, the fact of the matter is, is that this was the 1910s.

Everyone was trying to solve the problem of trying to figure out how to fight, and no one could keep up with how fast warfare was changing. Armchair generals watching people die in almost real time from drone footage in Europe did not exist in 1915.
by daliusd | 2025-09-06 19:59:09+00:00
I don't know about Aider, I am not using it because of lack of MCP and poor GitHub Copilot support (both are important to me). Maybe in the future that will get better if that will be relevant. I am using opencode.ai with Claude Sonnet 4 usually. Sometimes I try to switch to different models, e.g. Gemini 2.5 Pro, but Sonnet is more consistent for me.

It would be good to define what's "smaller code bases". Here is what I am working one: 10 years old project full of legacy consisting of about 10 services and 10 front-end projects. As well tried it on project similar to MUI or Mantine UI. Naturally on many smaller projects. As well tried it on TypeScript codebase where it has failed for me (but it is hard to judge from one attempt). Lastly I am using it on smaller projects. Overall question is more about task than about code base size. If the task does not involve loading too much context when code base size might be irrelevant.
by catlifeonmars | 2025-09-06 19:59:25+00:00
So there are two angles to this:

- From the perspective of LLM research/engineering, saying all LLM generation is hallucination is not particularly useful. It’s meaningless for the problem space.

- From the perspective of AI research/engineering in general (not LLM specific) it can be useful to consider architectures that do not rely on hallucination in the second sense.
by kelnos | 2025-09-06 19:59:58+00:00
It can be both, though. People who own land and build parking lots and structures on it will charge however much they can, based on what people will actually pay. If parking is more scarce, and the demand is there (as in, it's a popular place to visit), they'll be able to charge more.

And sometimes city councils restrict the amount of parking that can be built because they want to create that scarcity to encourage people to take transit instead of driving, because they know that the owners of the (fewer) parking areas will charge more, making it less desirable to drive and park.
by jampa | 2025-09-06 20:00:05+00:00
Thanks!

> Are you seeing a lower number of production hot fixes?

Yes, with E2E tests in general: They are more effective at stopping incidents than other tests, but they require more effort to write. In my estimation, we prevent about 2-3 critical bugs per month from being merged into main (and consequently deployed).

For this project specifically: I think the critical bugs would have been caught in our overnight full E2E run anyway. The biggest gain was that E2E tests took too much time in the pipeline, and finding the root cause of bugs in nightly tests took even more time. When a test fails in the PR, we can quickly fix it before merging.

> Have you tried other models? Or thought about using output from different models and combining the results when they differ?

Not yet, but I think we need to start experimenting. Claude went offline for 30 minutes over the last 2 days, and engineers were blocked from merging because of it. I'm planning to add claude-code-router as a fallback.
by iLemming | 2025-09-06 20:00:50+00:00
Yeah, well, I don't think it's that simple. You can't just say "eh, gamedevs apparently just don't want 'interactive workflows'", which of course, not true - look at Unreal's Blueprint live editing, Unity's play mode value tweaking, Godot's live scene editing, Jonathan Blow live-coding an entire game, etc.

I don't know why Arcadia wasn't very successful -I have never used it; I can only speculate on the causes, but I have good reasons to believe that Jank may actually succeed where Arcadia struggled - it is designed ground-up for game engine integration, no GC pauses, better FFI for engine bindings, etc.
by BrenBarn | 2025-09-06 20:01:15+00:00
It won't change until there is better regulation with muscular enforcement. Right now the choice is between paying an $X bug bounty and the vague possibility of some problem for not paying a bounty (e.g., someone sues you, or a PR fiasco causes you to lose customers). That basically means a choice between a 100% chance of losing $X right now (to pay the bounty) or an unknown but probably low chance of an unknown but probably high cost later on. Without any specific incentives, most people making decisions at companies will just choose to gamble on the future, hoping that they can somehow dodge the consequences.

To change that calculus, the chance of that future cost needs to go up and the amount of it also needs to go up. If the choice is between a $100k bug bounty now and a $10-million-dollar penalty for a security breach, people will bite the bullet and pay the bounty. If the CEO knows he will lose his house if its discovered that he dismissed the report and benefited financially from doing so, he will pay the bounty.

The consequences need to be shifted to the companies that play fast and loose with customer data.
by WalterBright | 2025-09-06 20:01:22+00:00
A friend of mine, Eric Engstrom, died of liver failure after taking (too much) Tylenol. Tylenol use over time can sneak up on you in the form of cumulative liver damage.

No, I'm not a doctor and this isn't medical advice.

Personally, a works-most-of-the-time treatment for headaches is going out for a walk. I don't know why it works, but it does.
by bediger4000 | 2025-09-06 20:01:52+00:00
> Microsoft was a joke in the security world for years, until multiple disastrously bad exploits forced them to get serious about security.

Microsoft's security orientation must have peaked before this article (2015), and the culture slid back, because I see a lot of folks bagging on Microsoft security right now. If true, deviance was normalized at Microsoft, de-normalized, and the re-normalized.
by furyofantares | 2025-09-06 20:01:58+00:00
Wanting it to pick between those modes based on what you asked for is not remotely ill-defined.

But even if we restricted ourselves to the case of factual queries, the article discusses why training in a certain way would still produce hallucinations, and how to change the training method to reduce this.

Like many of the other responses here, your dismissal doesn't really address any of the content of the article, just the title.
by benlivengood | 2025-09-06 20:02:03+00:00
I think you could moderate a large nuclear fission reactor (on the edge of criticality) to produce detectable differences in neutrino rate on the other side of the world. KamLAND and a few other experiments detected multi-GW reactor anti neutrinos at 1000km[0] and so presumably tens of GW (easily [if perhaps not safely?] achievable briefly in current reactors) should be detectable over 8000km.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S173857331...
by manquer | 2025-09-06 20:02:04+00:00
If you want to exact match to earth in our solar system line conditions , i.e. G-5 star with a rocky plant in the water zone and not too close to a binary if any - you would end up with only few possibilities in 1000Ly

However say red dwarfs with moons of closely orbiting gas giants, and many other combinations could in theory be sustain life easily .

We can learn from history on earth, economics is the reason why cities or outposts form and die, even when they are very hostile or very unsuitable and expensive to make it work.

Space would be no different, people would be happy to setup an outpost on Betelgeuse despite its impending supernova if they can say get away from regulation or it cheaper to make things for some other reason, or there is ideal low gravity planet with the right conditions for growing some thing even it would normally be considered hostile .
by hamandcheese | 2025-09-06 20:02:21+00:00
I would sign off on it. The only evidence I would need to see is some analysis of whether the risks are worth the benefits.

Risks: missing e2e tests that should have run letting bugs into production, more time spent chasing down flakes due to non determinism.

Benefits: increased productivity, catch bugs sooner (since you can run e2e tests more often).