MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by RogerL | 2025-09-08 01:21:58+00:00
Or because their kid or dog is in the car. Or because they have difficulty walking. Or because they just want to decompress and scroll their phone or listen to the news for 10 minutes. Or they hate crowds. Or they are immune compromised and don't want to be mingling with a bunch of people around a counter. Or they have social anxiety. Or they have a cold and just don't feel like getting out of their car. Or they are expecting a call from the baby sitter. Or they are having a fight with their spouse which they don't want to export into the public.

IMO, drive throughs are great, I hate crowds and queues (yes, the car line is a queue, you know what I mean), and it is much kinder to my bad discs in my back (transitions from sitting/standing is just murder, steady state is much better). It would take a egregious queue to get me to go in in most cases. But sure, I'm lazy or just reaaally bad at math. edit: I also find it hard to hear in high volume rooms with lots of reflections (like an in-n-out), and yes, the drive through can have it's own sonic issues, but it is generally smoother for me.

Sorry, but I get tired when people take the most uncharitable read, especially when they blanket apply it to everyone.
by motorest | 2025-09-08 01:21:58+00:00
> Since I use move semantics all the time (...)

Everyone who ever uses C++ uses move semantics all the time,including move elision. It's not an obscure feature.

> (...) this is for me the most frustrating thing about C++ full stop.

I've been using C++ for years and I have no idea what you could be possibly referring to. The hardest aspect of move semantics is basically the rule of 5. From that point, when you write a class you have the responsibility to specify how you want your class to be moved and how you want your moved-from class to look like, provided that you ensure you leave it in a valid state.

That's it.

What exactly do you believe needs fixing?
by satisfice | 2025-09-08 01:22:06+00:00
Look, I know you are trying to focus on the humanity part of humanity, instead of the nuts and bolts of economic life. I get it.

I support four adults with my work, including myself. My son writes fiction that I suspect will never earn him a dime. His wife suffers from disabling social anxiety. My wife is 65 and not able to work. We all live together in a gentle and loving cooperative existence.

Meanwhile, my career keeps a roof over our head. Now, why shouldn’t I see meaning in my struggle to keep the wheels turning? I have built something important in the course of my career. Not world shattering, but also not nothing.

A career is an honorable thing.
by bluGill | 2025-09-08 01:22:16+00:00
No they won't almost all the money difference is r&d costs that not only are already spent and thus sunk costs, but they still need to invest as not only does other countries demand it, it is a safe bet that there will be a legal change in a few years going back.

all they can do is maybe make some cars that currently are non-compliant but they will only do that if the jigs are still around and in good shape. They will not invest millions recreating worn out jigs that are not compliant and thus at risk of being useless whet the rules change again.

manufactures want consistency and predictability of policy because they have to make long term investments. This looks short term and so while they might take advantage it doesn't change much and in turn doesn't save much if anything.
by mdaniel | 2025-09-08 01:22:32+00:00
mDNS is like the LLM of DNS: sometimes, for some audiences, it works well, but when it doesn't work you're SoL trying to fix it other than "have you tried $(sudo killall -INT mDNSResponderHelper)?"

I'm not aware of any DHCP change needed for that, since to the very best of my knowledge mDNS is a broadcast protocol. Involving DHCP would be pointing it at the copy of dnsmasq running on your router, such that the hostname that the devices present to DHCP are then resolved by dnsmasq, no mDNS required
by autoexec | 2025-09-08 01:22:47+00:00
> Why order when you arrive at the place?

Most of the time if I stop at a fast food place it isn't exactly planned out in advance. I'm usually already on the road or on my way home from some place.

Calling on the phone would also mean taking the time to stop and look up a phone number, and I'm sure most places would rather not take your order over the phone and would push you to use some app that at best will be used to track and spy on you and at worst could be used for discriminatory pricing. They can use the data taken directly from your device to decide what to charge you (iphone users pay 4% extra!) or they can use your phone number/device ID/whatever fingerprinting shit they're using and hand that off to data brokers and consumer reputation services to get detailed info about you like your income level and buying habits and use that to set the prices you'll be charged in real time. Zeta Global says you're rich, so all the menu prices pushed to the app on your phone are 10% more than what they show the guy behind you in line.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-09-08 01:23:14+00:00
I'm pretty unconvinced by the examples.

> Some of us even align other parts of our code, such repeated inline comments

> Now, the arguments block forms a table of three columns. The modifiers make up the first column, the data types are aligned in the second column, and the names are in the third column

These feel like pretty trivial routines that can be encompassed by code formatting.

We can contrive more extreme examples, like the for loop, but super custom formatting ("typesetting") like that has always made me feel awkward, feels like it givesicemse for people to use all manners of arbitrary formatting. The author has some intent, but when you run into an inconsistent code based with lots of things going on, the variance doesn't feel informative or helpful: it sucks and it's a drain.

What's stored is perhaps more minimal, some kind of reference encoding, maybe prettier-ifies for js. The meat of this article to me is that it shouldn't matter: the IDE should let you view and edit as you like:

> Everyone had their own pretty-printing settings for viewing it however they wanted.
by jacquesm | 2025-09-08 01:23:25+00:00
> Close is all that is possible with human systems.

Yes, but there is 'close' with trying to get it as good as you can and there is 'close' without even trying. With is obviously better. To me, at least, even if it is slower.

> The alternative is giving up on all legal action, because every single one is fallible.

No, the alternative is to do your very best and to only disrupt lives when you have to, not just because you can. That's harder than just black and white and that is where judges come in and why people have a right to due process.

> Would you forego all law enforcement in your own country because of a nonzero error rate?

I don't think that's the choice. The choice is between having law enforcement that is bound by rules and law enforcement that is not bound by rules. The latter is - to me - unacceptable. I think everybody has a right to due process.

The last time we had a regime in NL that did not agree with that thesis is still very much in living memory here so I don't think you're going to find a lot of takers for Razzias and mass deportations. If that were to happen here in NL I'd find the nearest barricade and join the resistance. And I'm pretty sure I would not be alone in that.
by anonymousiam | 2025-09-08 01:23:45+00:00
I hope Dmitry did a good job. I've got a box of 2120 tapes with old backups from > 20 years ago, and I'm in the process of resurrecting the old (486) computer with both of my tape drives (floppy T-1000 and SCSI DDS-4). It would be nice to run a modern kernel on it.
by PaulKeeble | 2025-09-08 01:24:52+00:00
In theory we could have an IDE apply a reformatting to any piece of code we looked at and formatted any changes back to the standard for the code base on updates. One of the things I dislike is that sometimes autoformatting does a poor job and looses some information that manually formatting provides but honestly in go fmt is mostly fine it just works.

All of this seems doable, I just think for the most part we don't care very much about our preferences, it has very little impact on readability. Its definitely doable however we could view the code however we most wanted it and have it stored in a different formatting. Might not be 100% round trip stable but it probably doesn't matter.

There is always better where the defaults can be overridden and formatting forced and we only format new and changed lines to reduce potential instability but again go fmt doesn't really suffer from this so its possible to make things pretty reliable. Its simple really, there is a default formatting and the code is stored that way and we can then have our view of choice reformat the code as we want it, when its stored its stored in the default.
by maitrouble | 2025-09-08 01:24:56+00:00
[Summary]

These days, coding often means running and fixing LLM-generated code. In this “Vibe Coding” style, the language you use matters more than expected.

Python and TypeScript allow too much variation, so LLM output quickly loses consistency. Rust enforces strict safety, but that slows iteration. Go strikes a balance: explicit errors and simple rules that keep code uniform, while still letting you move fast.

That balance makes Go especially well-suited for Vibe Coding.
by rvz | 2025-09-08 01:25:57+00:00
> Really is an exciting future ahead. So many lost arts that don't need a dedicated human to relearn deep knowledge required to make an update.

You would certainly need an expert to make sure your air traffic control software is working correctly and not 'vibe coded' the next time you decide to travel abroad safely.

We don't need a new generation who can't read code and are heavily reliant on whatever a chat bot said because: "you're absolutely right!".

> Hopefully all that useless crypto wasted clock cycle burn is going to LLM clock cycle burn :)

Useful enough for Stripe to building their own blockchain and even that and the rest of them are more energy efficient than a typical LLM cycle.

But the LLM grift (or even the AGI grift) will not only cost even more than crypto, but the whole purpose of its 'usefulness' is the mass displacement of jobs with no realistic economic alternative other than achieving >10% global unemployment by 2030.

That's a hundred times more disastrous than crypto.
by bdangubic | 2025-09-08 01:27:01+00:00
most america subsidizing is not “party-based” - obama bailed out detroit 1000x over what DJT is doing now. oil/gas… same shit. farming, same shit.

it is not like every four/eight years we get to decide what is being subsidized - america is just as socialist as china when it comes to this shit :)
by bryanrasmussen | 2025-09-08 01:27:45+00:00
sure, but you're still stuck with the fact that with copilot, according to the rules you have put out, you are losing money with each thing you do, assuming you have to do a few hours more each time.

On the other hand do you have the liquidity to do it all with just v0?

For example I don't really have the liquidity right now to do anything other than free tiers.
by benoau | 2025-09-08 01:27:46+00:00
You have to at a minimum trust the OS vendor, probably a slew of development tools, and blindly trust all the hardware you work upon and cloud platforms you deploy to to only-work as advertised.

You shouldn't particularly trust any software, monitor outbound traffic, silo your different projects to minimize what software is adjacent to your projects and the fallout if something got access, minimize programming dependencies and browser and IDE extensions and add-ons and stuff coming from unknown 3rd parties. Stay behind the latest builds/updates/releases so problems have time to be identified.
by commandersaki | 2025-09-08 01:27:53+00:00
<shrug> I don't work for Apple and design these things, but for some privacy things they do go to the extreme. I can imagine the scenario where a TLA tries to replace the angle sensor so they can keep the mic open for surveillence reasons, hence why they do parts pairing.

https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/security/secbbd20b00b/...
by toofy | 2025-09-08 01:30:43+00:00
i definitely prefer to order from a person. for a few different reasons:

1) i kinda like people.

2) being in this industry, i know more than a few people who struggle with basic human social interaction shit. most of the people i know who are fine with other people worked these kinds of jobs when they were younger. dealing with customers face to face as a job teaches us stuff about interaction many of the struggle bus people unfortunately never learned.

3) once i’m past the novelty factor of ordering from an app or from a kiosk, i still find it to be smoother when just simply ordering from a person.

3) these are fantastic jobs for people’s first job. learning about work at a young age is soooo fucking important.

4) if it’s an adult working one of these, applaud them. it’s a shitty work environment with shitty pay, shitty bosses and too often shitty customers. most engineers i know couldnt sustain it for years. they would break (including myself, i just can’t imagine ever doing that again) if an adult is doing it, they really need that job.

5) im just done with the unaccountability once people are abstracted away. when something goes wrong, a human will generally fix it or point you in the right direction. we’ve all seen what happens when someone is locked out of their gmail or needs help with some other faceless org, its a dystopian nightmare (and yes, for certain people who need this explained to them, ‘dystopian’ is bad) we’re abstracting away people while knowing full well about the very real downsides. it’s wild.

we’ve hired a number of people who worked their way through school with these kinds of jobs and they’re almost universally a better hire than someone who has no real world human experience.

anyone who has ever used the “by their bootstraps” nonsense should absolutely be supportive of front line customer service people yet ironically those same ‘bootstraps’ people are the first to be like “less people is better!”

people are alright and i’m still confused by how many in our industry want to remove them.
by mdaniel | 2025-09-08 01:31:04+00:00
Fully cognizant that I'm rolling the dice by responding to this comment, but isn't picking a variable syntax that could resolve in the unsafe way a "you're holding it wrong" waiting to happen?

% set ex1 "SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE alpha=$bravo" can't read "bravo": no such variable % set ex2 "SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE alpha=?1" SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE alpha=?1

Don't get me wrong, https://peps.python.org/pep-0249/#paramstyle allowing %s and %(alpha)s are similar footguns and I wish they didn't exist, but at least they don't automatically resolve in the way that $ does in Tcl
by kccqzy | 2025-09-08 01:31:45+00:00
This is more of a reflection of how our profession has not meaningfully advanced. OP talks about boilerplate. You talk about grunt work. We now have AI to do these things for us. But why do such things need to exist in the first place? Why hasn't there been a minimal-boilerplate language and framework and programming environment? Why haven't we collectively emphasized the creation of new tools to reduce boilerplate and grunt work?
by gcanyon | 2025-09-08 01:33:16+00:00
I don't know the list of languages included in the book, but anyone interested should try out:

- J: https://www.jsoftware.com/#/ you'll learn arbitrary dimension arrays, verb composition and more - Lisp: I don't know the right Lisp to recommend. Macros stand out as something to learn - Forth: I don't know the right Forth to recommend. The stack is an interesting metaphor - A constraint-based language: maybe https://www.minizinc.org constraints are super interesting

Those are all practical languages -- none is esoteric just for the sake of strangeness.

There are more of course.
by crote | 2025-09-08 01:33:32+00:00
> If you sign up for electrical service for your house, and your shithead neighbor taps your line to power his array of grow lamps and crypto mining rigs, the power company will happily charge you thousands of dollars

Unlike cloud services, your electrical service has a literal circuit breaker. Got a regular three-phase 230V 25A hookup? You are limited to 17.25kW, no way around that. If that shithead neighbor tries to draw 50kW, the breaker will trip.

If it were the cloud, the power company would conveniently come by to upgrade your service instead. A residential home needing a dedicated 175MW high-voltage substation hookup? Sure, why not!

Water leaks, on the other hand, tend to be very noticeable. If a pipe bursts in the attic you'll end up with water literally dripping from the ceiling. It is very rare to end up with a water leak large enough to be expensive, yet small enough to go unnoticed. On the other hand, the cloud will happily let your usage skyrocket - without even bothering to send you an email.

There are plenty of compute service providers working with a fixed cap, a pre-pay system, or usage alerts. The fact that the big cloud providers don't is a deliberate choice: the goal is to make the user pay more than they wanted to.
by hedora | 2025-09-08 01:35:27+00:00
We’re saving way more than that. Probably the equivalent of $70-90 per “gas tank”. Old car was a late model truck of the same form factor.

The resale values on used EVs are poor because things are improving so fast. The new ones are better and cheaper, which isn’t really the case for ICE models.

The only exceptions are the first few years of Leaf’s, since they ate batteries, and teslas because of the non-removable MAGA bumper stickers.
by nine_k | 2025-09-08 01:35:28+00:00
Yes. The author essentially asked Claude to port a driver from Linux 2.4 to Linux 6.8. Very certainly there must be sufficient amounts of training material, and web-searchable material, that describes such tasks. The author provided his own expertise where Claude could not find a good analogue in the training corpus, that is, the few actually non-trivial bits of porting.

"Use these tools as a massive force multiplier of your own skills" is a great way to formulate it. If your own skills in the area are near-zero, multiplying them by a large factor may still yield a near-zero result. (And negative productivity.)
by autoexec | 2025-09-08 01:35:46+00:00
I don't really like people or interacting with them, but I know that the wage slave taking my order doesn't give a shit about me and will forget about me the moment I leave. A company using AI will be far more likely to be collecting my voice print, analyzing my speech to build a psychological profile on me, A/B testing everything from their word choices, inflection, and sales pitches to get me to spend more, etc.

The human behind the counter is exhausted, underpaid, and uncaring. They aren't trying to screw me over. The AI on the other hand might be outright adversarial
by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 | 2025-09-08 01:35:52+00:00
We have members on my team that definitely feel empowered to wade into new territory, but they make so much misdirected code with LLMs, even when we make everyone use Claude 4 thinking agents.

It seems to me that if you have been pattern matching the majority of your coding career, then you have a LLM agent pattern match on top of that, it results in a lot of headaches for people who haven't been doing that on a team.

I think LLM agents are supremely faster at pattern matching than humans, but are not as good at it in general.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-09-08 01:36:16+00:00
From your blog you appear to be a Georgist or inspired by Georgist socialism. And given that you appear to have a business and blog related to these subjects, you give the impression that you're a sort of activist for Georgism. I.e. not just researching it by trying to advance it.

So just zooming out, that's not the right sort of setup for being an impartial researcher. And in your blog post your disagreements come off to me as wanting a sort of purity with respect to Georgism that I wouldn't be expected to be reflected in the literature.

I like Kant, but it would be a bit like me saying ChatGPT was fundamentally wrong because it considered John Rawls a Kantian because I can point to this or that paper where he diverges from Kant. I could even write a blog post describing this and pointing to primary sources. But Rawls is considered a Kantian and for good reason, and it would (in my opinion) be misleading for me to say that ChatGPT made a big failure mode because it didn't take my view on my pet subject as seriously as I wanted.
by mdaniel | 2025-09-08 01:37:31+00:00
I do not accept that there were no editors, that there is no way to render $(diff -u) in those editors, and that there were no encrypted chat protocols available in the year 2000 (which is the frame of reference in the "17 year history" in that same section)

I'm aware that I am just digging a deeper karma hole for myself, but I stand by what I said: I'm glad it works for them, and I'm glad I don't have to use a hand rolled editor to send around hand rolled diffs via a hand rolled Tk chat client via a hand rolled protocol
by konfusinomicon | 2025-09-08 01:38:15+00:00
yes they do! those are the humans that pass down those lost arts even if the audience is a handful. to trust an amalgamation of neurally organized binary carved intricately into metal with deep and often arcane knowledge and the lineage of lessons that produced it is so absurd that if a catastrophe that destroyed life as we know it did occur, we deserve our fate of devolution back to stone tools and such.
by mc32 | 2025-09-08 01:38:25+00:00
We don't and should not buy cheap crap made abroad or at home. There are still clothing manufacturers in the US (and Japan), who make quality but more expensive clothing. Instead of a $30 "throwaway" hoodie, you get a $140 hoodie that lasts. It'll last longer and it can employ your neighbor instead of letting them become meth heads due to being laid of as a seamster or seamstress, etc. It's a better quality of life for everyone.
by anyfoo | 2025-09-08 01:38:43+00:00
I don't think the author is in the camp of unconditionally hyping AI: https://dmitrybrant.com/2023/03/25/artificial-stupidity

Even without that other article, this really reads like the author tried it for menial tasks on a neat passion project, and reports his success on it. (I'm a kernel developer, so I can empathize.)
by jacquesm | 2025-09-08 01:39:40+00:00
Ook!

I love esoteric languages. They're a never ending rabbit hole, and they really force you to revisit all of your assumptions about what it means to program. The most interesting ones for me were the Lambda calculus and Brainfuck.

And of course there is Forth. Which always felt like it was just around the corner from some kind of breakthrough but it never really happened.

Collaborative software projects and all of the modern tooling feel like massive (and endless) layers of abstraction on top of some pretty simple principles. Esoteric programming languages allow you to revisit programming without all of that super structure and for that alone they are valuable, they are pretty pure in that sense.
by anyfoo | 2025-09-08 01:40:14+00:00
> I said nobody will use the driver. But I am terrible wrong because one person will?

Yes? The person who needs it is using it. Other people who need it (anyone who wants to archive tapes of that kind) now can, too.

> Second, another post on hackernews about how AI helps you code is not AI hype?

Do you think it was written with the intent to specifically hype AI, rather than to report on a passion project?
by twinspop | 2025-09-08 01:40:45+00:00
This is exactly what i do with an older iPad. It’s running HASS. The smart switch* is turned off when charge is over 80%, and on when charge drops below 30%. It’s been like this for 4 years. No issues. And I’ve been logging every on/off cycle. Some day I’ll check to see how it’s changed over the years.