MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ForOldHack | 2025-09-22 19:38:12+00:00
There are also people telling you the earth is flat, and 30 years of experience can be compressed into a 4 minute you tube video. Even if a chisel could spy on me, it becomes dull with use, where as AI may become sharper with use, it still cannot distinguish which idiot is operating it. AI is just for people to learn prompting, which is an art, like google searching. It still cannot fathom "taste." or a large host of other types of nuances, that again, only come with experience and enculturation.
by sunscream89 | 2025-09-22 19:38:20+00:00
No way!

Computation is vectors, vectors are information, intelligence is the determinant resolve of information.

That all fits.

Life is something else.

Further, it may be more honest to say life is a technology of consciousness (inflection upon the potential of existential being) rather than the other way around.

Life is something different than computation, however computation may shape the technology of life.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-09-22 19:38:39+00:00
That's wild. I was convinced you could not do an arcade-style game in BASIC on the Apple II.

I tried (at the time) to figure out shape tables (a kind of vector graphic) as those seemed like the way to go (short of my learning assembly — which was not going to happen). I never got a shape table to appear on screen.

It's too bad there were not more system calls you could make to handle higher level graphics functionality.
by uniqueuid | 2025-09-22 19:38:50+00:00
There are many more weird and complex architectures in models for video understanding.

For example, beyond video->text->llm and video->embedding in llm, you can also have an llm controlling/guiding a separate video extractor.

See this paper for a pretty thorough overview.

Tang, Y., Bi, J., Xu, S., Song, L., Liang, S., Wang, T., Zhang, D., An, J., Lin, J., Zhu, R., Vosoughi, A., Huang, C., Zhang, Z., Liu, P., Feng, M., Zheng, F., Zhang, J., Luo, P., Luo, J., & Xu, C. (2025). Video Understanding with Large Language Models: A Survey (No. arXiv:2312.17432). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.17432
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-09-22 19:38:51+00:00
A custom language in GHA would be worse. You'd be limited by whatever language they supported, and any problems with it would have to go through their support team. It adds more burden on GHA (they spending more time/money on support) without creating value (new features you want).

You already don't have to use YAML. Use whatever language you want to define the configuration, and then dump it as YAML. By using your own language and outputting YAML, you get to implement any solution you want, and GitHub gets to spend more cycles building features.

Simple example:

1. Create a couple inherited Python classes 2. Write class functions to enable/disable GHA features and validate them 3. Have the functions store data in the class object 4. Use a library to output the class as YAML 5. Now craft your GHA config by simply calling a Python object 6. Run code, save output file, apply to your repo

I don't know why nobody has made this yet, but it wouldn't be hard. Read GHA docs, write Python classes to match, output as YAML.

If you want more than GHA features support [via configuration], use the GHA API (https://docs.github.com/en/rest/actions) or scripted workflows feature (https://github.com/actions/github-script).
by jjav | 2025-09-22 19:38:56+00:00
> That a human was still in the loop in addition to a computer and both missed it.

Listen to the audio in the video. The humans do see it and talk about it for a long time before the car hits it. Had a human been driving, plenty of time to avoid it without any rush.

They do nothing to avoid it presumably because the whole point of the experiment was to let the car drive, so they let it drive to see what happens. Turns out Tesla can't see large static objects in clear daylight, so it drives straight into it.
by bmicraft | 2025-09-22 19:39:21+00:00
That's wrong, if they only specifiy Ah, then they usually imply cell voltage (3.7V avg.) and not the 5V you're drawing over USB.

Even if you assume you're charging a phone with that, you first need to subtract 25-40% total losses. And then consider that phone batteries are LiHV with 3.85-3.9V nowadays.
by atmavatar | 2025-09-22 19:39:27+00:00
The title is unfortunately more than a little irresponsible, considering it's the norm for many (most?) to read only the title.

There is no dichotomy here: you need to know testing as well as data structures and algorithms.

However, the thrust of the article itself I largely agree with -- that it's less important to have such in-depth knowledge about data structures and algorithms that you can implement them from scratch and from memory. Nearly any modern language you'll program in includes a standard library robust enough that you'll almost never have to implement many of the most well-known data structures and algorithms yourself. The caveat: you still need to know enough about how they work to be capable of selecting which to use.

In the off-chance you do have to implement something yourself, there's no shortage of reference material available.
by brendoelfrendo | 2025-09-22 19:39:35+00:00
Where does this fit in with the $300 billion partnership between OpenAI and Oracle? You know, the one that also hasn't happened yet and catapulted Oracle's stock price through the stratosphere last week? Is that also getting built or is OpenAI partnering with Nvidia to get access to the GPUs that neither they nor Oracle currently own?
by mpalmer | 2025-09-22 19:40:42+00:00
For any company that wants to secure and maintain critical source infrastructure for a language, community/maintainer relations is a fundamental responsibility. It is not to be waved away with quasi-candid admissions that you're just too small a team, too technical, etc. Even if this board member is being totally sincere about his feelings for Ruby and its community, it changes little.

> Some of those companies specifically pay Ruby Central to ensure the security and stability of that part of the supply chain, but then discovered that people with no active affiliation or agreement in place had top level privileges to some of this critical infrastructure.

This is the most candid bit of the article.

RubyCentral seems to have screwed up. The sense I get after reading this paragraph is that RC's non-apologies about poor communication are smoke. Why did they have to move this quickly/silently? Well...

If you are taking money from businesses in exchange for certain assurances about the security/soundness of RubyGems, you have a responsibility the minute pen leaves paper to KYC(ontributors). Not when there's suddenly a fire, or when your clients notice.

By all appearances, RC was negligent, if not necessarily in the legal sense. They were highly reactive in response to a problem they should have been across already, and they have paid for it with a chunk of the Ruby community's trust.

To now retcon this action as poorly-communicated but ultimately noble and security-minded does not sit very well.
by jerf | 2025-09-22 19:41:00+00:00
This is one of the things I'd tune in the current curriculum.

When I went to college in the late 1990s, we were right on the verge of a major transition to DSAs being something every programmer would implement themselves to something that you just pick up out of your libraries. So it makes sense that we would have some pretty heavy-duty labs on implementing very basic data structures.

That said, I escaped into the dynamic programming world for the next 15 years or so, so I almost never actually did anything of significance with this. And now even in the static world, I almost never do anything with this stuff directly because it's all libraries for them now too. Even a lot of modern data structures work is just using associative maps and arrays together properly.

So I would agree that we could A: spend somewhat less time on this in the curriculum and B: tune it to more about how to use arrays and maps and less about how to bit bang efficient hash tables.

People always get frosty about trying to remove or even "tune down" the amount of time spent in a curriculum, but consider the number of things you want to add and consider that curricula are essentially zero-sum games; you can't add to them without removing something. If we phrase this in terms of "what else could we be teaching other than a fifth week on pointer-based data structures" I imagine it'll sound less horrifying to tweak this.

Not that it'll be tweaked, of course. But it'd be nice to imagine that I could live in a world where we could have reasonable discussions about what should be in them.
by mavamaarten | 2025-09-22 19:41:04+00:00
So true. We used to appoint someone in the group to take notes. These notes were always correct, to the point, short and easy to read. Now our manager(s) are heavily experimenting with recording all meetings and desperately trying to produce useful reports using all sorts of AI tools. The output is always lengthy and makes the manager super happy. Look, amazing reports! But on closer inspection they're consistently incomplete one way or another, sometimes confidently incorrect and full of happy corpo mumbo jumbo. More slop to wade through, when looking for factual information later on.

Our manager is so happy to report that he's using AI for everything. Even in cases where I think completeness and correctness is important. I honestly think it's scary how quickly that desire for correctness is gone and replaced with "haha this is cool tech".

Us devs are much more reluctant. We don't want to fall behind, but in the end when it comes to correctness and accountability, we're the ones responsible. So I won't brainlessly dump my work into an LLM and take its word for granted.
by LiquidSky | 2025-09-22 19:41:05+00:00
His response is absurd. This is no different than having a human associate draft a document for a partner and then the partner shrugging their shoulders when it's riddled with errors because they didn't bother to check it themselves. You're responsible for what goes out in your name as an attorney representing a client. That's literally your job. What AI can help with is precisely this first level of drafting, but that's why it's even more important to have a human supervising and checking the process.
by ryandrake | 2025-09-22 19:41:13+00:00
A surprising chunk of HN commenters earnestly believe that "caveat emptor" should be some kind of horrible default way of life. Like businesses should be able to sell anything they want, without regulation, as long as they can convince people to buy those things. And if those things don't work--well it's 100% the customer's fault for being so gullible and not being responsible for the company's quality.
by dylan604 | 2025-09-22 19:41:30+00:00
No single civil engineer designs a bridge though now do they? So the premise of your retort is just way off here. No bridge plan is made without reviews after one person presses print on the plotter. Even the construction company hired to build the bridge will review the plans before they break ground. If someone is building a bridge on their private property and hires their nephew, that's on them. An actual civil project, nope, I reject your premise outright.
by andoando | 2025-09-22 19:41:30+00:00
I am not sure what your point is. Mine is precisely that there is no clear definition nor diagnostic criteria for ADHD, and that merely having more than an average collection of these otherwise ordinary behaviors, does not automatically constitute a new neurological disorder.

>Also your example is kinda dumb! You don't have to have Alzheimers to be forgetful, it's actually quite common. But if you post "anyone else here keep forgetting things?" on r/Alzheimers obviously people on there are going to be like "yeah me too".

What I was trying to demonstrate is that people DO have the belief that ADHD is a causative thing in itself, and not merely a name for a collection of symptoms used to make treatment easier, as was suggested is the case.
by carlosjobim | 2025-09-22 19:41:40+00:00
If syncing is through iCloud, you'd only have to trust Apple and nobody else, if I understand things right. And yes, I trust Apple a thousand times than I'd trust a web hosting company or all the open source projects involved in self hosting.

Self hosting is an unsurpassable mountain for 99% of people who need to use computers. The risk to security and data loss is much higher than from syncing your apps through iCloud or through the app manufacturer.
by dingi | 2025-09-22 19:41:47+00:00
No amount of “own the code you generate” policies will prevent the rise of “I don’t know, the AI wrote it” excuses in the LLM era. What’s more likely is that reviewers will be flooded with unvetted, generated code. Over time, this can lead to reviewer fatigue and a gradual decline in rigor. If the trend continues, the impact could be significant once the most experienced engineers begin to retire.
by kenstler | 2025-09-22 19:41:47+00:00
One of the authors here -- we should clarify that strong copyleft license is a best attempt at decontamination for the public set. It's part of the tradeoff for having an open source set -- true decontamination is available with the private commercial set, but we can't release these, and if we did they'd be immediately susceptible to future contamination.
by samlambert | 2025-09-22 19:41:48+00:00
happy to answer this with direct customer quotes from the companies you mentioned. all of these quotes are public:

"We chose PlanetScale to host our most demanding Vitess and Postgres workloads, doing millions of queries per second on hundreds of terabytes of data." – Sualeh Asif - Chief Product Officer @Anysphere (Cursor)

"Moving to PlanetScale added a 9 to our uptime." - Brian Scanlan @Intercom https://x.com/brian_scanlan/status/1963552743294967877

"In the past we've had issues when something unusual happens on a specific shard, resulting in spiked CPU and poor performance, and since migrating we haven't really seen instances of this, speaking to PlanetScale choosing the correct hardware for our existing load at the outset." - Aaron Young, Engineering Manager @block

It seems like you are reaching pretty hard to find an issue with this statement. Your comment seems to come from a lack of experience scaling databases and not understanding how difficult it is to do what we've done in partnership with our customers. Either that or deep or a high level of insincerity.
by rcrowley | 2025-09-22 19:41:52+00:00
A lagging replica, even one that just acknowledged a semi-sync write, will return stale results if you route a `SELECT` to it.

First and foremost, the extra copies of the data are for fault tolerance. In specific circumstances they may offer some slack capacity that you can use to serve (potentially stale) reads but they're never going to offer read-your-writes consistency.

The docs you quote are a bit obtuse but the "acknowledgement" is the row event being written to the binary log. "Fully executed and committed" is when it makes its way into InnoDB and becomes available for future reads.
by bri3d | 2025-09-22 19:42:24+00:00
> I don't fully parse your question about blue/green. can you expand your question please? is this for online updrades?

Online upgrade or migration DDL - both use cases. I think Amazon's blue/green is effectively the same thing as your "branch-and-commit" strategy for schema migration. I was just looking for whether there's a significant difference.

> We have not made max_standby_streaming_delay configurable yet. What's your use case?

This goes with

>> Do you support something like Aurora Fast Cloning (whether a true CoW fast clone or detaching a replica _without_ promoting it into its own cluster / branch with its own replicas, incurring cost)?

The use case is mixing transaction processing and long-running queries/analytics in the same database using read replicas. The easiest way to do this in a native Postgres cluster is by using a "soft-real-time" read-replica with max_standby_streaming_delay set to `-1`, which is allowed to fall behind worst-case by the duration of a dashboard query and then keep up again.

This doesn't work in environments with more esoteric SAN-based replication strategies like Aurora, where max_standby_streaming_delay can't go beyond 30 seconds. In this case we have to use some combination of strategies: making CoW clones for each analytics task, architecting data to avoid leader/replication conflicts, for example by using partitioning, retrying replica queries until they don't access hot rows, or falling back to traditional analytics/data warehouse solutions at the application or logical replication layer. Not having to do these things would be a nice benefit over Aurora.
by neilv | 2025-09-22 19:42:29+00:00
I came here to quote that exact part of the article.

My guess is that he probably doesn't believe that, but that he's smart enough to try to spin it that way.

Since his career should be taking at least a small hit right now, not only for getting caught using ChatGPT, but also for submitting blatant fabrications to the court.

The court and professional groups will be understanding, and want to help him and others improve, but some clients/employers will be less understanding.
by maxenglander | 2025-09-22 19:42:52+00:00
> instead of emphasizing how they just couldn't scale past their previous limits.

We are not saying that our customers don't have the knowledge or expertise to do what we do. Many of our customers, including the ones mentioned above, have exceptionally high levels of expertise and talent.

Even so, it is not a contradiction to say that we allowed them to scale beyond their previous limits. In some cases those limits were that their previous DBaaS providers simply lacked the ability to scale horizontally or provide blazing fast reads and writes the way we do out of the box. In other cases, we offer a degree of reliability and uptime that exceeded what customers' previous DBaaS could provide. Just two name a couple of limits customers have run into before choosing PlanetScale.

Expertise and know-how, and actually doing the thing, are different. Many of our customers who are technically capable of doing what we do would simply prefer to focus their knowledge and expertise building their core product, and let the database experts (that's us) do the databasing.
by robinwinters | 2025-09-22 19:45:34+00:00
After culinary I was a cook/chef in starred/bib kitchens for 15+ years. I also apprenticed at an old school Japanese whetstone sharpening shop during that time period (my SF neighbors here probably know BC). I have a certain amount of expertise in this area and I can say unequivocally that there is no way this could be used for even moderate prep work. There's nothing wrong with the steel, it's a pretty standard SS, the size is a little too large for my hands, I like a 160, but 200 is a good middling size for most. It’s the vibrating. You know how your hands feel after holding a ~~vibrato~~…lawn mower for a while and then your hands feel like fuzzy pudding? There’s that, but the blade will shift constantly, and heaven help you if the motor goes wacky/dying.

I'm trying to think of a place for this in any kitchen, home or professional, and cannot see it being safe or all that useful...especially for $400.

It's a cool idea and really makes wanna go watch The Bad Batch again, BX Battle Droids carry vibroblades, but other than pure novelty it aint cuttin it for me.

Bonus for the buy-curious: Getchu a hydrodynamic spatula…jk. Get a nice 160mm - 200mm carbon steel gyuto, Tojiro makes pretty good entry level knives; a paring knife, and a Mercer white handle offset bread knife (a classic) and that’s all you need. For sharpening, a medium grit, muddy synthetic whetstone, I’m a huge fan of Aoto 2-4k, and you don’t really need much else for getting started, but in a way that even the serious pros will know you’re doing the right things. Maybe you need a strop, maybe. Chromium Oxide on leather or cork. Oh, and a SOFT wood cutting board. Hinoki wood is the undisputed king of cutting boards, or you could go with a no-trax self healing synth rubber if you have the $$. Put a wet kitchen towel/papertowel under your cutting boards so they don’t move around when you’re using them. Haste makes waste, and a wet towel is a hot towel.

Leave the money on the dresser.
by hackrmn | 2025-09-22 19:46:13+00:00
I have to say reading the statement "requires some pretty aggressive permissions to work" sounds like there's a problem with Android permissions model. I mean, if the app needs permissions, one should normally assume it needs these permissions in order to, well, be permitted to do its work? In other words, a "good-natured" app should not need more permissions than it needs to work, and the last part is kind of a tautology. Either that, or Android has broken permissions model, which may apparently be too coarse -- as in you need "access to Internet" for auto-update to work, despite auto-update normally being done by Google (when a Google-forked Android) over a secure channel etc.
by keeda | 2025-09-22 19:46:16+00:00
> a search is complete bullshit because it puts the onus on the other person to discredit the gargantuan amount of data you've flooded them with.

Alternatively, a search is a way to show that basing your opinions on limited personal experience or a single source is silly given the vast amount of other research out there that largely contradicts it. Worse if that single source itself happens to have flaws that are not sufficiently discussed, e.g. at least one of the 16 participants from the METR study deliberately filtered out large tasks that he strongly prefered do only with AI -- what does that mean for its results?

https://xcancel.com/ruben_bloom/status/1943536052037390531

> Many of the studies in that search don't have anything to do with programming at all.

That's fair, but unfortunately due to the limits of keyword search. For instance "medical coding" is not programming-related at all, but is being impacted by LLMs and gets caught in the keyword search ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

Anyway if your preference is "real-world projects", here are a couple specific studies (including one that I had already separately mentioned in the linked comment) at much larger scales that show significant productivity boosts of LLM-assisted programming at doing their regular, day-job tasks:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4945566 (4867 developers across 3 large companies including Microsoft)

https://www.bis.org/publ/work1208.pdf (1219 programmers at a Chinese BigTech)

There are many more, but I left them out as they are based on other methodologies such as the use of standardized tasks for better comparability, or empirical analysis of open-source commits, or developer surveys, or student projects, which may get dismissed as "not an RCT on real-world tasks." Interestingly they all show comparable, positive results, so consider that it's not as straightforward to dismiss other studies as being irrelevant.
by threeducks | 2025-09-22 19:46:17+00:00
Last quarter, NVIDIA reported data-center revenue of $30.8 billion and gaming revenue of only $3.3 billion.

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financia...

This also explains why NVIDIA will not sell high VRAM consumer GPUs: it would cannibalize on their exorbitant data-center profits.
by therein | 2025-09-22 19:46:23+00:00
> It seems like you are reaching pretty hard to find an issue with this statement. Your comment seems to come from a lack of experience scaling databases and not understanding how difficult it is to do what we've done in partnership with our customers. Either that or deep or a high level of insincerity.

Up until this, I was gonna say, fair enough, I appreciate the direct replies from the staff.

But this paragraph settles it for me: PlanetScale as a company has a narcissistic personality which is fine for some I guess. Hopefully one day you will have a product that justifies that huge ego.