MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jsheard | 2025-09-06 15:03:51+00:00
GitHub isn't even the worst example of this at Microsoft, they didn't just force AI on Office users but also tricked them into paying extra for it. They unilaterally switched all personal and family accounts over to AI-enabled plans that were 30-40% more expensive, and hid the option to revert back to the old plan such that it's only offered as a last resort if you try to cancel your subscription.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-09-06 15:04:11+00:00
Did you read the article? You’re going on some generic tangent and regurgitating the same spiel about LLMs that you see all over the internet.

I mean it’s plain that you have an orthogonal (though generic) opinion on why LLMs hallucinate but how does that relate to the article? How does your opinion which you blatantly just dropped as if it’s the final opinion override the opinion of the article?

Seems off topic honestly.
by the_af | 2025-09-06 15:04:34+00:00
Wow. I thought the tone of TFA was infuriating. Now I know why (I quit in disgust before reaching the end where he clarifies this).

I guess AI-slop in writing will be the norm now.

(I wonder if Claude repeatedly quoting itself saying "you're absolutely right!" was edited in by the human author, or yet another case of unintentional humor).
by gkoos | 2025-09-06 15:04:35+00:00
I got tired of reimplementing timeout/retry logic, so I built a thin fetch() wrapper.

const client = createClient({ timeout: 5000, retries: 3, circuit: { threshold: 5, reset: 30000 } }) const response = await client('/api/data') // exactly like fetch()

Drop-in replacement, zero deps, ~2KB. Has lifecycle hooks for auth/logging, exponential backoff with jitter, respects Retry-After headers, and proper AbortSignal composition. Preserves all native fetch behavior.

https://github.com/gkoos/ffetch

Thoughts?
by chvid | 2025-09-06 15:04:37+00:00
I put in exactly 37 work hours pr. week. If I for some reason work more one day, I make sure to take time off the next day.

I have "experimented" with working more but I found it unconstructive. Chances of stress is much higher and with stress comes doing stupid things that I afterwards will regret.

I believe this holds for both working for myself and someone else.
by drob518 | 2025-09-06 15:05:00+00:00
Having worked at several startups, I’ll say that 996 is a lie. The best startups were ones that worked HARD for 8 to 10 hours, 5 days per week. What I always found at companies “working” 996 (or something close) was that mostly everyone was hanging out in the break room playing foosball or video games (or watching someone else do it). Sure, they were “in the office,” but the productivity of those hours beyond 8 was really low. Everyone would have been better off going home and coming back in fresh tomorrow after a good night’s sleep and having spent some time with friends and family. In fact a startup CEO friend of mine told me that he considered it a win to get 2 to 4 really productive hours per day. He found the rest of his time was typically wasted in meetings that could have been handled via email and in minutia that someone else should have dealt with. If somebody’s telegraphing crazy work hours in a job post, just walk away.
by andrepd | 2025-09-06 15:05:26+00:00
There's no way "30 min by car" is a thing unless you bulldoze the entirety of Central London and replace it with freeways and parking lots. It's always a red herring.

Cars are simply not viable past a certain density. It's silly (misleading at worst) to take a distance (say 40km) and a speed (say 80kph) and just claim the journey by car takes 30mins, ignoring everything else!

Trains + metro + bikes are the only way to make the journey you describe viable (and comfortable and fast).
by nycpig | 2025-09-06 15:05:39+00:00
IANAL, but to answer your question, maybe? The CFAA has a fairly broad scope. "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access and thereby obtains, information from any protected computer; " 1030(a)(2)(C)

Sandvig v. Barr tempers that a bit, with the DoJ now offering some guidance around good faith endeavors around security research.

I'd suggest Jane have a good lawyer on retainer, and a few years to spend in the tied up the legal system.
by zamadatix | 2025-09-06 15:06:21+00:00
Yes on the preclusion, because ACME is based on you proving you are in some way in control of the public domain you're trying to get a cert for, but using ACME/certbot for internal homelabs is not the same walk in the park as it is for publicly exposed servers anyways.

The easiest solution I've found is to not play the game. I.e. just use HTTP for your homelab, and if the service doesn't let you use anything but HTTPS then bind it to 127.0.0.1 and set up Caddy to reverse proxy and ignore the cert in a few lines. If you want to expose things externally and do happen to own a domain then set up a single external *.yourdomain.tld record which points to your public IP, bind an instance of Caddy to it, and reverse proxy to the internal HTTP only services. The internal service DNS entries can still use .internal so you won't have to deal with split-horizon DNS either.
by Aurornis | 2025-09-06 15:06:33+00:00
Are you actually agreeing to specific hours? For example, in a contract, as an hourly worker, or with some formal arrangement with the company?

If so, then yes you should only work those hours.

However, if you’re a typical full-time employee in most countries you don’t have agreed upon hours.

> If I'm an employee with miniscule equity, why would I put in any more time and effort than what was agreed?

Again, if something was agreed upon you should follow that. In most full-time jobs they’re not going to specify a maximum number of working hours. It’s your job to explain what can be done in a workweek and push back when something can’t be done. If it persists and you don’t like it then you find another job. Vote with your feet.
by davidhs | 2025-09-06 15:06:44+00:00
If the internal representation of Tesla Autopilot is similar to what the UI displays, i.e. the location of the w.r.t. to everything else, and we had a human whose internal representation is similar, everything jumping around in consciousness, we’d be insane to allow him to drive.

Self-driving is probably “AI-hard” as you’d need extensive “world knowledge” and be able to reason about your environment and tolerate faulty sensors (the human eyes are super crappy with all kinds of things that obscure it, such as veins and floaters).

Also, if the Waymo UI accurately represents what it thinks is going on “out there” it is surprisingly crappy. If your conscious experience was like that when you were driving you’d think you had been drugged.
by randomname4325 | 2025-09-06 15:07:34+00:00
True story. I grinded hard at a startup for years. This was a decade ago so the concept of 996 wasn't part of the lore yet. But it was fun. We stayed late and I made life long friends. I worked closely with the founder (really awesome dude) as I was an early-ish employee. The company ended up not working, our equity went to zero and we got what you get when you don't get rich, experience. I ran into the founder randomly on the street years later. He didn't even remember my name. He recognized me and was excited to see me, but he had no idea what my name was. So yah, prioritize your life.
by techjamie | 2025-09-06 15:07:50+00:00
Who is spending weeks learning and practicing Morse, and also getting their friends to buy-in, just to bully people discreetly?

When I was in school, they'd just come up with agreed upon dog whistles and use them in front of you, directed at you. They'd usually be otherwise innocuous but packed with some alternative meaning only the in-group knew until they told you.

That's a lot less effort than learning an entire communication system.
by evanmoran | 2025-09-06 15:07:58+00:00
To clarify. Protobuf’s simplest change is adding a field to a message so wrapping maps of maps, maps of fields, oneof fields into a message makes these play to its strengths. It feels like over engineering to turn your Inventory map of items into a Inventory message, but you will be grateful for it when you need a capacity field later.
by DamonHD | 2025-09-06 15:08:31+00:00
I had a huge row with my prospective US investment banking client manager because we had a conversation that went something like "we'll pay you for 8 hours but we expect you to work 10" (or 12). I said, why lie immdiately in our contract? We could try adjusting the expected hours or the hourly rate or both...

Anyhow I got to be paid for the hours that I actually did for well over a decade on off IIRC, and survived most of the purges of consultants/contractors there over the years, so demanding honesty from management was apparently survivable even if unusual!
by crazygringo | 2025-09-06 15:08:42+00:00
> it makes you far more productive as an individual, which if true should be an easy sell

Writing unit tests where needed makes you more productive in the long run. Writing in modern languages makes you more productive. Remember how people writing assembly thought compiled languages would rot your brain!

But people just resist change and new ways of doing things. They don't care about actual productivity, they care about feeling productive with the tools they already know.

It's a hard sell when an application moves a button! People don't like change. Change is always a hard sell to a lot of people, even when it benefits them.
by satyrnein | 2025-09-06 15:09:03+00:00
I was wondering about this, but digital versions are typical DRM-encumbered and actually a license (not a true purchase) whose terms probably don't allow this. The court's decision was that training is fair use, but in practice, it seems many avenues are blocked.

It reminds of the theoretically public beaches that are blocked off by privately owned land.
by randerson | 2025-09-06 15:09:33+00:00
Borrowing productivity from the future is how I feel about my career as a whole. I spent 30 years working stressful 70-80 hour weeks, only to burn out completely in my late 40s. From high achiever to practically zero executive function. Like my ability to get into a flow state blew a fuse and now I can't get there. Meanwhile all my peers who kept a healthy work-life balance in their 20s and 30s are still doing great.
by gcanyon | 2025-09-06 15:09:48+00:00
Thx for this! The one that stands out is the guy who says "my grandmother who doesn't speak the language and doesn't drive" -- that speaks to unsupervised. That said, most of rest don't seem incompatible with "supervised"

To be clear, this is obviously a reframing from the implications Musk has made. But I still don't see adding "supervised" to the description as that big a shift for most of the use cases that have been presented in the past.
by ethbr1 | 2025-09-06 15:09:51+00:00
Unilaterally deciding as an adult "when" is censorship.

A big discussion point in the panel, which I agree with, is that kids will move on to more mature themes when they're ready (and not before).

Retarding that development process by deciding what is and isn't age appropriate for them (a) breaks down trust and communication and (b) substantially raises the risk of their doing so secretly, which increases the very risk you're trying to prevent.

We may have had different childhoods, but no bans my parents put in place that I felt strongly about weren't circumvented.

My philosophy on parenting is that you should support and be involved in your child's development, at the pace they choose, not plan and meter it.
by Zigurd | 2025-09-06 15:10:03+00:00
I recently asked Gemini to riff on the concept of "Sustainable Abundance" and come up with similar plausible bullshit. I could've filled a slate of TED talks with the brilliant and plausible sounding nonsense it came up with. Liberated from the chains of correctness, LLMs' power is unleashed. For example:

The Symbiocene Horizon: A term suggesting a techno-utopian future state where humanity and technology have merged with ecological systems to achieve a perfect, self-correcting state of equilibrium.
by RossBencina | 2025-09-06 15:10:34+00:00
Forget on-disk. Different CPUs represent basic data types with different in-memory representations (endianness). Furthermore different CPUs have different capabilities with respect to how data must be aligned in memory in order to read or write it (aligned/unaligned access). At least historically unaligned access could fault your process. Then there's the problem, that you allude to, that different programming languages use different data layouts (or often a non-standardised layout). If you want communication within a system comprising heterogeneous CPUs and/or languages, you need to translate or standardise your a wire format and/or provide a translation layer aka serialisation.
by supportengineer | 2025-09-06 15:11:23+00:00
I have absolutely zero faith that the current political ruling class will “come to their senses”.

All you have to do is observe their current behavior and you will come to the same conclusion.

When billionaires show you who they are, believe them the first time.

They have not lived through a depression and neither have they lived through any major world wars. They will be curious to see how bad it can get and they believe they will remain untouched from it.
by pvtmert | 2025-09-06 15:11:24+00:00
Docker is useful and running in production. (well, it was the only, before containerd got separated entirely and it was usable directly from K8s about when it was 1.16)

What you say is absolutely correct. If Docker keeps creating compatibility layers for it's competitors, it makes everyone to switch to a competitor. In this case, the competitor is Kubernetes as it's running in production for much larger scale (enterprise workloads) compared to Podman et. al.

Hence, it's the job of Podman, Kubernetes, et. al. to write their compatibility layer to provide a value-add for their customers.
by TrackerFF | 2025-09-06 15:11:48+00:00
The standard answer from owners: You work on something you're really passionate about, and are willing to sacrifice your own time for "the mission", "changing the world", or whatever they frame it is.

Some founders really do hype up their B2B SAAS product as the the Apollo program, and so naturally any engineer will work around the clock to put man on the moon.
by safety1st | 2025-09-06 15:11:56+00:00
Honest question: what's with the penchant some people have to turn every conversation into a referendum on how horrible America is?

You realize there are countries that are even worse to their citizens right? Like I'm really asking, why do so many people online seek to eliminate all conversation that isn't a simple and un-nuanced condemnation of America?

I am able to have criticisms of America while also thinking there are good things about it and that there are also worse places, but some people seem incapable of holding those three ideas in their heads simultaneously. Especially the idea that there actually are countries worse than the US, they just can't fathom that it seems, or don't consider it a fact that should receive any attention.
by next_xibalba | 2025-09-06 15:12:01+00:00
This reads like it was written by an LLM:

``` Here’s what Listen did that was pure genius:

Stage 1: Cryptic billboard → Curiosity Stage 2: Token puzzle → Technical community engagement Stage 3: OEIS speculation → Community-driven solving Stage 4: Berghain Challenge → Viral optimization addiction

```
by LadyCailin | 2025-09-06 15:12:33+00:00
I would say that it is responsible disclosure. Or anyways, not doing that is irresponsible disclosure. The corporation may be hurt by early disclosure, and that’s whatever, but very often, there are a ton of ordinary people that are collateral damage, and the only thing they did wrong was exist in a society where handing over hoards of personal data to a huge corporation is unavoidable.

So yes, anyone who discloses before the company has had a reasonable chance to fix things is indeed irresponsible.
by rahimnathwani | 2025-09-06 15:12:56+00:00
I was just North of Golden Gate Park. The nearest bus stop was 1 minute away. I wanted to take a 20 minute bus ride. The nearest Walgreens was 30 mins walk away (Geary and 42nd/43rd). The nearest street with shops was 12 mins walk away. I don't know whether any of those shops offered Clipper card top-up.
Show HN: Dr. WFGY – an AI doctor for broken pipelines (chat-based）
by tgrrr9111 | 2025-09-06 15:12:57+00:00
I’ve been mapping real AI pipeline failures for months and turned it into something practical:

Dr. WFGY is a shareable ChatGPT room that acts as a 24/7 AI doctor.

* You paste a screenshot of your pipeline error (retrieval drift, RAG collapse, agent deadlock, embedding mismatch, etc.).

* The doctor triages it to a known failure mode from the catalog.

* It then prescribes the minimal fix with a reference link.

* Text-only, no SDK, no infra change.

Think of it as an ER for AI bugs: it doesn’t rest, doesn’t need context, and always maps your issue to one of the structural fixes.

The link runs live inside ChatGPT, no account on my side, no hidden tools.

---

### Why it exists

Most fixes today patch errors after generation: rerankers, regex, retries. That’s firefighting.

Dr. WFGY + Global Fix Map flips the order: it acts before generation. It blocks unstable semantic states, loops or resets if drift is detected, and only lets stable reasoning generate output.

That’s why once a failure is mapped, it stays fixed.

---

### Global Fix Map

Dr. WFGY is backed by the Global Fix Map:

* 300+ pages of reproducible AI bugs and guardrails.

* Covers retrieval, vector DBs, embeddings, long context, OCR, multi-agent orchestration, deployment order, and more.

* Each page = how it fails, how to reproduce, and the smallest stable repair.

It is MIT-licensed, model-agnostic, and already has been tested across GPT-4/Claude/Gemini/Mistral/Ollama.

---

If you have a broken prompt or pipeline trace, drop it in the chat window and see if the doctor can classify and repair it.

Feedback from people who actually ship prompts and pipelines is the most valuable signal.
by vel0city | 2025-09-06 15:13:03+00:00
I've been doing EV road trips for four years now and I've never had to queue for a charger.

A recent road trip I went on about a month ago, I pulled up to the place I was planning to charge (an EA station attached to a Walmart, was going to go to the deli for a snack while it charged). It was completely full and seemed like there were a few people waiting. I just drove to another charging location about 2mi away (a 7/11 station I think?) and charged there and had a snack. No big deal.

That's about the closest I've had to queue in the past few years. Other than that, there have usually been multiple open chargers available. And once again that's only when I've road tripped. I've had to waste far more of my life pumping gas in my non-EV than I've spent waiting on charging despite my ICE getting far fewer miles.
by ninetyninenine | 2025-09-06 15:13:23+00:00
But this explanation doesn’t fully characterize it does it?

Have the LLM talk about what “truth” is and the nature of LLM hallucinations and it can cook up an explanation that demonstrates it completely understands the concepts.

Additionally when the LLM responds MOST of the answers are true even though quite a bit are wrong. If it had no conceptual understanding of truth than the majority of its answers would be wrong because there are overwhelmingly far more wrong responses than there are true responses. Even a “close” hallucination has a low probability of occurring due to its proximity to a low probability region of truth in the vectorized space.

You’ve been having trouble conveying these ideas to relatives because it’s an inaccurate characterization of phenomena we don’t understand. We do not categorically fully understand what’s going on with LLMs internally and we already have tons of people similar to you making claims like this as if it’s verifiable fact.

Your claim here cannot be verified. We do not know if LLMs know the truth and they are lying to us or if they are in actuality hallucinating.

You want proof about why your statement can’t be verified? Because the article the parent commenter is responding to is saying the exact fucking opposite. OpenAI makes an opposing argument and it can go either way because we don’t have definitive proof about either way. The article is saying that LLMs are “guessing” and that it’s an incentive problem that LLMs are inadvertently incentivized to guess and if you incentivize the LLM to not confidently guess and to be more uncertain the outcomes will change to what we expect.

Right? If it’s just an incentive problem it means the LLM does know the difference between truth and uncertainty and that we can coax this knowledge out of the LLM through incentives.
by tliltocatl | 2025-09-06 15:13:33+00:00
There is an (IMHO quite underexplored) alternative of using HLL as a metalanguage for generating low-level code. Like Chisel/Spinal does for Verilog RTL, but with C or LLVM IR instead of RTL. I. e. terra-lang did this with Lua (afair didn't took off because of unfixably bad design choices from the start).

Why this matters: compile-time metaprogramming is the way to provide zero-cost abstractions. HLLs tends to avoid metaprogramming because it's hard, instead relying on rich runtime (i. e. late binding and dynamic dispatch). Sometimes (i. e. in game engine code) that's not really an option. And metaprogramming is best done is something lisp-like, rather than C-like or C++-templates like.

As to why this is underexplored, I think there are multiple reasons:

- The most important one: those who care about the language tends to spend so much time on the language that they never get to the actual product,

- We already have C++ templates which can do anything (they are also an unholy ureadable mess because they were invented for a completely different purpose) and C macros (which are also unholy unreadable mess because K&R hated macroprocessors passionately and curbed cpp to a bare unusable minimum). And people exposed to those conclude that any compile-time metaprogramming must necessarily be an unholy unreadable mess not worth exploring.

- Most library bindings are in C, so any such system should include a C parser. At which point you wonder why bother at all?
by tsoukase | 2025-09-06 15:13:50+00:00
Ibuprofen is NSAID (non steroid anti inflammatory), oaracetamol is not. Related but different.

As long as autism, there can be no causative link. Millions have autism, billions take paracetamol. Autism has, like its cousin schizophrenia, a strong genetic-familial basis. Hardly any environmental factor increases the risk so much to be worrisome.
by hedora | 2025-09-06 15:13:55+00:00
Here’s another list:

https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/cheapest-elect...

The model 3 is 1.5x more expensive than the cheapest car on the list, and it’s not obviously better than other things in its price range.

Here are some brands that have delivered more affordable EVs than Tesla: Kia, Hyundai, Chevy, Cooper, Nissan.

Note that all of these cost about 2x more than international competitors.

On top of that, Ford’s upcoming platform is targeting $30K midsize pickup trucks. Presumably, most other manufacturers have similar things in their pipelines.

Tesla is already behind most of its competitors, and does not seem to have anything new the pipeline, so the gap is likely to expand.

They’ve clearly failed to provide affordable EVs. They’ve been beaten to market by a half dozen companies in the North American market, and that’s with trade barriers blocking foreign companies that are providing cars for less than half these prices.