MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by angarg12 | 2025-09-06 15:24:54+00:00
We drove from Seattle to SF and back on a Model 3, and I would say there were only a couple of situations where I wish we could keep driving instead of recharging. Otherwise almost all breaks for charging aligned with breaks to go to the toilet, eat, walk the dog, or simply have a rest.

Definitely a very minor inconvenience. And, compared with frequent trips to the gas station vs charging at home overnight, a total net positive in time saved (if you want to measure it that way).
by martin-t | 2025-09-06 15:24:58+00:00
LLM providers should only be allowed to train on data in public domain or their models and outputs should interior the license of the training data.

And people should own all data about themselves, all rights reserved.

It's ironic copyright is the law that protects against this kind of abuse. And this is of course why big "AI" companies are trying to weaken it by arguing models training is not derivative work.

Or by claiming that writing a prompt in 2 minutes is enough creative work to own copyright of the output despite the model being based on 10^12 hours of human work, give or take a few orders of magnitude.
by cryptonector | 2025-09-06 15:25:08+00:00
Time does not pass for photons. So yes, that is exactly what GP is saying.

There's also a different thing that GP might be hinting at, which is that by convention we assume that the speed of light is the same in all directions, but there are other conventions we can use as long as the round-trip speed of light agrees with that which we've measured (and yes, we can only ever measure the round-trip speed of light, FYI). Another convention is that all the light we see takes zero time to get to us but the light we emit goes out at half the speed one would expect with the standard convention (known as the Einstein synchronization convention). So instead of "light we see from Alpha Centauri is 4 years old" or "we see Alpha Centauri as it was 4 years ago" we can say that we see it as it is right now, but this is not a very commonly used convention.
by michaelrpeskin | 2025-09-06 15:25:10+00:00
> I don’t think Java makes people into bad programmers, but I do think it selection-biases for intellectually unambitious engineers. They learn exactly enough Java in college to pass their courses, and then get a job at a BigCo that doesn’t strictly require ever learning anything more than what they were taught in their “intro to data structures” course.

I think that's a fair comment, but also there's this perspective: I first touched Java 1.1 in 1997 in college, and only for a semester. Then for the next 22 years never looked at a line of Java, working mostly in C++ and Python plus dabbling in FORTRAN for high performance stuff that needed to be written there. I generally consider my self not intellectually unambitious.

Then I moved to a Java shop who specifically needed high performance math (well at least as high performance as you can get in Java, which is actually pretty good now). But we stick to Java 8 compatibility because we have some BIG customers who require that because of LTS on Java 8. There are some nice constructs that would help make the code more readable and modern, but when you need to support people and actually make money you do what you need to.
by motorest | 2025-09-06 15:25:10+00:00
> Don't forget the opportunity cost. Urban land is extremely valuable, so if you're using it for car parking instead of shop, restaurants, homes, or offices you're missing out on a lot of potential income.

Indeed, and to build upon your comment, how entitled can some people be to expect they can just take over random ~10m² spots in a property you do not own and expect that to be ok? It isn't. Those spots ain't yours, and I would love to not have to come across your car.
by knowitnone2 | 2025-09-06 15:25:28+00:00
isn't this typical Microsoft behavior? Just look at Windows and how many components are forced upon you. Try uninstalling it, it just comes right back. Most of it, you can't even uninstall. Some you can't even unpin. That's a monopoly for you. And they steal your documents by making OneDrive the default so they can train their AI. It's malicious.
by currymj | 2025-09-06 15:25:45+00:00
not only does a founder capture more upside, they also pay less of a cost. autonomy prevents burnout even under very intense working conditions.

plus the nature of a founder's day to day work is very different. 12 hours a day of management, pitches, meetings, and snap decisions is doable for a long time if you can endure the pain.

12 hours a day of complex technical work under sleep deprivation is just not possible, after a few weeks of this your cognitive function will decline to the point you can't do the job right.
by senthil_rajasek | 2025-09-06 15:25:53+00:00
"Burning out on twelve-hour days, six days a week, has no prize at the end. It’s unsustainable, it shouldn’t be the standard and it sure as hell should not be seen as a positive sign of a company."

This

I've worked long hours back in the 2000's. I went home at 4:00AM no one asked me to but because I read somewhere that a certain CEO worked 20hrs a day.

My boss noticed and told me that there was nothing she could offer me for the extra hours.

I still continued to do it only to learn much later what the author posted in the article (see quote).

Working long hours is not a badge of honor, what you produce (in software atleast) is what matters.
by dns_snek | 2025-09-06 15:26:33+00:00
You're assuming that the choice is between immediate public disclosure and coordinated disclosure. Doing "the responsible thing" takes effort that is often disrespected (sometimes to the extreme).

I'm so sick and tired of some companies that any vulnerability I find in their products going forward is an immediate public disclosure. It's either that or no disclosure, and it would be irresponsible not to disclose it at all.
by CuriouslyC | 2025-09-06 15:27:24+00:00
I'm currently running 10,2,7 because I'm on fire and need to get the things in my head out into the world, but the idea that I would expect anyone I was working with to pull that kind of weight is just insanity. I sit down and the day flies by as I build foundational software, but that's my passion, my quest. I would only expect that sort of intensity from a collaborator asking for a 50/50 split.
Ask HN: LLM struggles to center div too?
by divan | 2025-09-06 15:27:50+00:00
I used AI coding agents for the past half a year a lot with Flutter. Recently I had to work on the tailwind web project, and I was surprised how often it gets layout/UI wrong. Even with puppeteer attached, haveing access to raw HTML output and screenshots, it's still struggles to do simple alignment, centering things.

In a way, it mirrors famouse "centering div in css" challenge, but I wonder if it's the same experience for other people who work with web stack more often.
by rafram | 2025-09-06 15:27:56+00:00
It’s a free country, etc. Obviously I have the “right” to comment a warning on the internet.

The point of bug bounties isn’t “validation” (as if old-school hackers didn’t want validation!), it’s that companies with responsible disclosure programs explicitly allow you to pentest them as long as you follow their guidelines. That removes the CFAA indictment risk. The guidelines generally aren’t much stricter than common sense (don’t publish user data, don’t hurt people, give them time to patch before publishing).

Unfortunately, the existence of bug bounties has made some people forget that hacking a company without an agreement in place is still a crime, and publishing evidence of crimes to a wide audience on the internet is a bad idea.

Most of what you’re saying just seems like nostalgia talking. Isn’t it better that hackers today have a way to find real vulnerabilities without going to jail?
by cryptonector | 2025-09-06 15:28:01+00:00
> These cycles can be counted.

In a lab setting, yes, but across such distances, no. Photons don't have a cycle counter on them, so they don't keep a cycle count and can't reveal that cycle count. All we can do is measure frequency/wavelength (spectrum, really, since we're going to see lots of photons, not really onesie/twosies) and intensity, and we can use the astrophysical distance ladder to figure out roughly where the emitter must have been.
by octo888 | 2025-09-06 15:28:37+00:00
Take over as in rent for a fee? Nobody mentioned free.

Are you against renting homes, hotel rooms etc too? Do you object to the vast spaces that hotels occupy?

And if it's public property, well, we all pay taxes and could argue it's collectively owned. Why would it be entitlement?

I could say public transport advocates are entitled expecting taxes to pay for vastly expensive public transport infrastructure projects
by j45 | 2025-09-06 15:28:46+00:00
Just like someone who can figure out how to write code to solve a problem can do it while other programmers say it's not possible and just do it some other way, the same is true of AI.

One of the major issues I'm seeing is how much technical people haven't been involved in the application of AI, which leaves non-technical people to pontificate and try.

With any new tech, after the hype is gone, what remains, is adopted and used.

The internet, social media, smartphones, all seemed foreign.

LLMs are no different. They will solve things other things haven't before.

LLMs are only as good as the users using it. Users only get better at using AI but putting in the repetitions. It's not a tool that's alive or a psychic.
by slics | 2025-09-06 15:29:37+00:00
This concept of 996 or 007 it may be acceptable to Young people without kids and family obligations for as long as their bodies allow it (without enough sleep, descent food or exercise).

For others with families (spouse, kids, activities for kids, hanging out with friends, spending time with your spouse and friends outside of work) it may not even be an option and may not be able to support it.

Life is like a coin. There are two sides of a coin. Flipping it, it will always land in one side. As a person with a family you have to pick the side that matters otherwise, you are gambling with it. Gambling doesn't always go your way - the cost is higher when it comes to picking work over family.

As a parent myself, I am constantly struggling with picking the right choice. Long hours may pay well, but those long hours also have a negative impact on your family. If you ask, your family rather spend time with you than have a new shiny toy or a big house and a fast car.
by vel0city | 2025-09-06 15:29:43+00:00
One quick obvious example, they put tactile features on the road specifically so you can feel them. Little bumps on lane markers. Rumble strips on the boundaries. Obvious features like that.

While it doesn't often snow or ice up here (it does sometimes), it does rain a good bit from time to time. You can usually feel your car start to hydroplane and lose traction well before anything else goes wrong. It's an important thing to feel but you wouldn't know it's happening if you're going purely on vision.

You can often feel when there's something wrong with your car. Vibrations due to alignment or balance issues. Things like that.

Those are quick examples off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Of course, all these things can be tracked with extra sensors, I'm not arguing humans are entirely unique in being able to sense these things. But they are important bits of feedback to operate your car safely in a wide range of conditions that you probably will encounter, and should be accounted for in the model.

As for auditory feedback, while some drivers don't have sound input available to them (whether they're deaf or their music is too loud or whatever) sound is absolutely a useful input to have. You may hear emergency vehicles you cannot see. You may hear honking alerting you to something weird going on in a particular direction. You may hear issues with your car. Those rumble strips are also tuned to be loud when cars run over them as well. You can hear the big wind gusts and understand those are the source of weird forces pushing the car around as opposed to other things making your car behave strangely. So sure, one can drive a car without sound, but its not better without it.
by krullin | 2025-09-06 15:29:57+00:00
To me, it seems that version-change-safety and the usefulness of the generated code constitute a design tradeoff: If you mark a field as required, then the generated data structures can skip using Option/pointers, and this very common form of validation can be generated for free. If you disallow marking a field as required, then all fields must be checked for existence, even ones required for a system to function, which is quite a burden and will lead to developers having to write their own types anyway as a place to put their validated data into. If data is required to be present for an app to function, then why can't I be given the tools to express this, and benefit from the constraints applied to the data model?

Most of the time when I would like to use a schema-driven, efficient data format and code generation tool, the data contract doesn't change frequently. And when it does, assuming it's a backwards-incompatible change, I think I would be happy to generate a MyDataV2 message along with GetMyDataV2 method, allow existing clients to keep using the original version, and allow new or existing clients to use the newly supported structures at their leisure. Meanwhile, everyone that shares my schema can have much more idiomatic generated code, and in the most common cases won't have to write their own data types or be stuck with a bunch of `if data.x != null {` statements.

Protobufs are an amazing tool, but I think there is a need for a simpler tool which supports a restricted set of use cases cleanly and allows for wider expression of data models.
by snthpy | 2025-09-06 15:30:17+00:00
Hi, thanks for correcting me on that. It actually says right [here](https://docs.ethena.fi/solution-overview/risks/exchange-fail...) that they use CEXs to trade the derivative positions so I clearly didn't do my due diligence on this. I don't mind being wrong but I shouldn't have been spreading misinformation when I didn't know the details so I apologise for that.

I'm actually quite disappointed that this is how they implement the protocol because to me the main benefit of the hedged collateral model was that it was the one way to produce a truly decentralized stablecoin. Do you know of another project that implements the same mechanism fully on-chain and decentralized?
by Arrowmaster | 2025-09-06 15:30:53+00:00
The thing that stuck with me after learning about it is that AAA games aren't called AAA because they are supposed to be the best of the best or the most advanced.

AAA games are named after AAA investment ratings. A AAA game is supposed to be the most profitable investment for the publisher paying the upfront investment. And the market has gotten saturated with enough customers that doing new things to get more customers is more risky than doing the same thing to keep your existing customers.
by ankit219 | 2025-09-06 15:30:54+00:00
> your particular persuasive triggers through chatbot memory features, where they train and fine-tune based on your past conversations

Represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how training works or can work. Memory is more to do with retrieval. Finetuning on those memories would not be useful given the data is going to be minuscule to affect the probablity distribution in the right way.

While everyone is for privacy (and thats what makes these arguments hard to refute), this is clearly about using privacy as a way to argue against using conversational interfaces. Not just that, it's using the same playbook to use privacy as a marketing tactic. The argument starts from highly persuasive nature of chatbots, to somehow privacy preserving chatbots from DDG wont do it, to being safe with hackers stealing your info elsewhere and not on DDG. And then asking for regulation.
by SillyUsername | 2025-09-06 15:31:48+00:00
The irony of this is that Gen-Z have been mollycoddled with praise by their parents and modern life, we give medals for participation, or runners up prizes for losing. We tell people when they've failed at something they did their best and that's what matters. We validate their upset feelings if they're insulted by free speech that goes against their beliefs.

This is exactly what is happening with sycophantic LLMs, to a greater extent, but now it's affecting other generations, not just Gen-Z.

Perhaps it's time to rollback this behaviour in the human population too, and no I'm not talking reinstating discipline and old Boomer/Gen-X practices, I'm meaning that we need to allow more failure and criticism without comfort and positive reinforcement.
by leetcrew | 2025-09-06 15:31:52+00:00
it consistently works and has a huge ecosystem, but "beautiful" is never a word I would use to describe java. off the top of my head:

* no type level concept of a const object (ie, you can have a const reference to a List, but never a reference to a const list). this makes const-ness an implementation detail of the class itself! so frustrating that List:add() can throw depending on the underlying class.

* lack of tuples (and no, record doesn't count). this is just a syntactic sugar thing, but I really miss it from c++ and python.

* var is far less powerful than c++ auto.

in most cases, I actually prefer the syntax of c++, which is really saying something.
by stavros | 2025-09-06 15:32:00+00:00
I would agree if I could use ChatGPT's advanced voice mode with them. It's purely a software/lock-in issue that I can't, but it means that I never wear my glasses, vs wearing them all the time.

They're so unobtrusive for chatting, that it would be amazing if we could get a capable LLM on the other side. Too bad we can't because corporations like walled gardens.
by pessimizer | 2025-09-06 15:32:19+00:00
This is silly, and there's no time. We can't even ban illegal surveillance i.e. we can write whatever we want into the law, and the law will simply be ignored.

The next politician to come in will retroactively pardon everyone involved, and will create legislation or hand down an executive order that creates a "due process" in order to do the illegal act in the future, making it now a legal act. The people who voted the politician in celebrate their victory over the old evil, lawbreaking politician, who is on a yacht somewhere with one of the billionaires who he really works for. Rinse and repeat.

Eric Holder assured us that "due process" simply refers to any process that they do, and can take place entirely within one's mind.

And we think we can ban somebody from doing something that they can do with a computer connected to a bunch of thick internet pipes, without telling anyone.

That's libs for you. Still believe in the magic of these garbage institutions, even when they're headed by a game show host and wrestling valet who's famous because he was good at getting his name in the NY Daily News and the NY Post 40 years ago. He is no less legitimate than all of you clowns. The only reason Weinberg has a voice is because he's rich, too.
by ethbr1 | 2025-09-06 15:33:07+00:00
> Anyway, I don't think Tesla were wrong to not use LIDAR - they had good reasons to not go down that route. They were excessively expensive and the old style spinning LIDARs were not robust. You could not have sold them on a production car in 2018.

The correct move for Tesla would have been to split the difference and add LIDAR to some subset of their fleet, ideally targeted in the most difficult to debug environments.

Somewhat like Google/Waymo are doing with their Jaguars.

Don't LIDAR 100% of Teslas, but add it to >0%.
by j45 | 2025-09-06 15:33:13+00:00
For now.

It's important to not confuse activity, with progress, with results.

At the same time, it's important to not confuse or downplay results, with progress, with activity.

There seems to be activity, progress, and results. It seems to be speeding up.

I don't have any preference for or against Tesla. Just observing.
by tialaramex | 2025-09-06 15:33:19+00:00
Mostly human vision is just violently different from a camera, but you could interpret that as a mix of better and worse.

One of the ways it's better is that humans can sense individual photons. Not 100% reliably, but pretty well, which is why humans can see faint stars on a dark night without any special tools even though the star is thousands of light years away. On the other hand, our resolution for most of our field of vision is pretty bad - this is compensated for by changing what we're looking it when we care about details we can just look directly at it and the resolution is better right in the centre of the picture.
by Wowfunhappy | 2025-09-06 15:33:29+00:00
...it's strange that one of my favorite things about working at a sleepaway summer camp was the fact we were more-or-less always working. During the hours in the middle of the day when I wasn't directly responsible for my 16 kids, I was usually planning for what to do once they got back—sometimes by myself, but often with other adults. We all lived together, of course.

The job felt immersive and all-encompassing. My colleagues and I had a singular mission to make the kids' experience as spectacular as possible. It's hard for me to imagine another job replicating that, but maybe it could be done?
by hedora | 2025-09-06 15:33:42+00:00
All the engineers that I’ve worked with that were doing 12 hour x 6 days ended up being drags on the rest of the team. Their 2am fever dream garbage would hit prod, and then it’d take a full time support person to apologize to customers while two full time engineers wasted a week refactoring production into something that worked.

Anyway, I’ve noticed I can only work 6 hours if I write code myself, but can easily hit 10 hours vibe coding / reviewing / writing the tricky bits.

Has anyone tried 10-4 these days? It’s still 40 hours per week, but feels more sustainable.
by goku12 | 2025-09-06 15:34:16+00:00
To be fair, I don't see any sort of technical arguments on either side to justify their claims. You need some clue about its internal design and its current state to make an educated guess about the expected development time. Without that, 25 years is as valid a guess as 5 years. But I won't dismiss any claims outright. I'm all ears if anyone has any explanation to offer.
by jfengel | 2025-09-06 15:34:24+00:00
Maven still sucks.

IntelliJ IDEA is genuinely great. It helps that they were the ones who developed Kotlin, and a fair bit of the actual language changes were gacked from Kotlin. (Or you could say "prototyped and shown valuable in Kotlin".)

They are still hampered by lousy nullable support.

You didn't ask, but Spring still sucks. It's not part of the language but it's a ubiquitous framework.
by rldjbpin | 2025-09-06 15:34:34+00:00
my team switched to podman due to docker desktop licensing (and only using engine pain). personally it has been quite annoying to work with on windows with cuda.

the need to spin its own wsl instance (which takes a lot of disk space) and gpu workarounds are just not there yet.

others have mentioned about podman compose but the old docker-compose do work to be fair.
by akerl_ | 2025-09-06 15:34:40+00:00
I’m saying out loud “I think rebranding coordinated disclosure as responsible disclosure has negative impacts and we shouldn’t do it”.

Thats not putting my thumb on the scale so much as shouting my opinion. The rebrand puts its thumb on the scale specifically because it avoids saying “we think non-coordinated disclose is irresponsible”; it sneaks it under the name change.