MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jve | 2025-09-29 11:26:39+00:00
Baltic fellow here.

Good thing no one asked us about the digital identity when they implemented it.

It makes a difference as much as electronic money does. So instead of having to physically be able to pay someone we can transfer it, pay by debit card and lots of other ways now.

With digital identity we get the same - we can do paperwork remotely and securely.

Well people in Germany are also slow to get away with physical money and they are miles behind in digital services, so... some still enjoy the snail speed of everything (or not).

Meh, instead of days of paperworks, we can sell a car remotely (paperwork-wise). I tick some checkbox in my phone, the buyer ticks and off he goes - he has X number of days to acquire new technical passport for car and that's it. Also can be mailed if he wishes so.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-09-29 11:26:47+00:00
That's very true. I worked for a company that was known for doing what others have done, but better. That's sort of Apple's philosophy, as well.

Anyone can walk through a minefield, as long as they're patient, and don't mind walking past a lot of body parts.

Omaha Beach was a nightmare on D-Day, but a lot less challenging, in the next few days.
Show HN: Open-Source Shadcn Dashboard and Landing Page(Next.js/React,Tailwind)
by monavb | 2025-09-29 11:27:10+00:00
We're excited to share shadcn-dashboard-landing-template – a complete, open-source template for building robust admin dashboards and professional landing pages using shadcn/ui, Tailwind CSS, and available in both Next.js and Vite/React versions.

The Problem We're Solving: Every SaaS, internal tool, or web application eventually needs a polished admin interface and a compelling landing page. Developers often spend countless hours building these from scratch, or resort to expensive, opinionated, or overly complex templates. This leads to wasted development time, inconsistent UIs, and slower launch cycles.

Our Solution: We've developed a production-ready template that acts as a solid foundation, allowing developers to jumpstart their projects with a modern, accessible, and highly customizable UI.

Key Features: - Comprehensive Admin Dashboard: Includes common patterns like data tables, forms with validation, charts/data visualization, user management layouts, and complex grid structures. - Professional Landing Page: Features hero sections, feature showcases, pricing tiers, testimonials, and calls to action. - Built with shadcn/ui: Leverages the current best-in-class component library for beautiful, accessible, and headless UI primitives. - Utility-First Styling with Tailwind CSS: Ensures easy customization and consistent design system implementation. - Framework Flexibility: Available in both Next.js (App Router ready) and Vite + React versions. - Fully Responsive: Designed mobile-first to look great on all devices. - Dark/Light Mode Support: Theming is built-in.

Why shadcn/ui? We chose shadcn/ui because it offers unstyled, re-usable components that you own. This gives developers maximum flexibility and control, avoiding vendor lock-in while still providing an excellent developer experience. It beautifully complements Tailwind CSS for a highly customizable and performant stack.

Live Demos: Dashboard Demo: https://shadcnstore.com/templates/dashboard/shadcn-dashboard... Landing Page Demo: https://shadcnstore.com/templates/dashboard/shadcn-dashboard...

Repository: GitHub: https://github.com/silicondeck/shadcn-dashboard-landing-temp...

We believe this project can save countless hours for startups and developers looking to quickly ship high-quality UIs. We're actively maintaining it and welcome contributions and feedback from the community.
by 55555 | 2025-09-29 11:27:46+00:00
It still works in manual mode and it is still mostly done manually, despite AI. This is the "chat" model powering 6 billion dollars of annual OnlyFans revenue and billions of dollars to dating sites advertising "girls in your area" on porn sites. Armies of mostly Filipino chatters pretend to be women and do what is essentially a soft romance scam.

Governments have essentially never looked into it, despite it having gone on uninhibited for 20+ years and at the scale of billions annually for at least 16+ years.
by senko | 2025-09-29 11:28:38+00:00
Since the title isn't very informative, here's a tldr:

> Is 90% of code going to be written by AI? I don’t know. What I do know is, that for me, on this project, the answer is already yes. [...] At the same time, for me, AI doesn’t own the code. I still review every line, shape the architecture, and carry the responsibility for how it runs in production. But the sheer volume of what I now let an agent generate would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Written by Armin Ronacher of Flask, Jinja, and general Python fame.
by phatfish | 2025-09-29 11:28:46+00:00
Most pensioners don't need financial help. The fuel allowed was introduced by Gordon Brown when they were the poorest cohort in the country. Now they are they amount the most well off. Pensioners that need it still get it.

Strangely there was no fuss when universal child benefit was taken away in 2015 (or maybe later I forget). The media was full of stories about how rich people were getting £20 a week when they didn't need it.

Now apparently pensioners that have a larger income than most working families are desperate for the fuel allowance and they will be freezing to death without it. Its nonsense.
by Y-bar | 2025-09-29 11:29:16+00:00
Again, that has nothing to do with why Apple considers it okay to punish other companies who wants to use those API:s. Apple is under zero obligation to make the API:s easy to implement, it’s just that they cannot forbid anyone from using them, no matter how complex you imagine them to be. No matter if only engineers at Apple has the mental acuity to understand them, no matter if Apple by laws of nature is the only company in the galaxy that could design such silicon to be able to use the API effectively, and so on… Apple is under no obligation to change the behaviour of their API:s to accommodate competing products, they are just not allowed to hide them from and punish competitors.
by sokoloff | 2025-09-29 11:29:58+00:00
I once retrofitted a computer racing game/sim from single-player to multi-player.

I thought it was a masterpiece of abusing the C pre-processor to ensure that all variables used for player physics, game state, inputs, and position outputs to the graphics pipeline were guarded with macros to ensure as the (overwhelmingly) single-player titles continued to be developed that the code would remain clean for the two titles that we hoped to ship with split-screen support.

All the state was wrapped in ss_access() macros (“split screen access”) and compiled to plain variables for single-player titles, but with the variable name changed so writing plain access code wouldn’t compile.

I was proud of the technical use/abuse of macros. I was not proud that I’d done a lot of work and imposed a tax on the other teams all for a feature that producers wanted but that in the end we never shipped a single split-screen title. One console title was cancelled (Saturn) and one (mine) shipped single-player only (PlayStation).
by Yizahi | 2025-09-29 11:31:00+00:00
I've read a handful of his LLM articles completely, last year and this year. What I'm getting from his articles (I think) is this:

The USA stock market is largely driven by a dozen of FAANG companies whose valuation is rising fast and who are investing tens of billions in the LLMs. And all those companies are mono-dependent on the Nvidia cards, whose valuation is skyrocketing based on those expenditures. So point 1 - if LLMs would be as profitable as expected, the whole FAANG top-10 will slow down or even drop.

Point 2 he makes - a lot of the LLM-only companies are deeply in debts, acquire more debt, and continue kicking repayment can down the road, all at the same time. So assuming (again) that LLMs are not as profitable as expected, some LLM-only companies can go bust.

I think he wasn't making a statement that LLMs are intrinsically bad or useless, at least in those articles I've seen. He was just saying that financing aspect if very iffy AND that current world IT sector is way to overdependent on LLMs.
by sfn42 | 2025-09-29 11:32:00+00:00
That's a great point, and I feel like it is relevant for a lot more than games.

We should definitely have a plan before we start, and sketch out the broad strokes both in design and in actual code as a starting point. For smaller things it's fine to just start hacking away, but when we're designing nå entire application i think the right way to approach it is to plan it out and then solve the big problems first. Like multiplayer.

They don't have to be completely solved, it's an iterative process but they should be part of the process from the beginning.

An example from my own work: I took over an app two other developers had started. The plan was to synchronize data from a third party to our own db, but they hadn't done that. They had just used the third party api directly. I don't know why. So when they left and I took over, I ended up deleting/refactoring everything because everything was built around this third party api and there was a whole bunch of problems related to that and how they were just using the third party's data structure directly rather than shaping the data the way we wanted it. The frontend took 30-60+ seconds to load a page because it was making like 7 serialized requests, waiting for a response before sending the next one and the backend did the same thing.

Now it's loading instantly, but it did require that I basically tear out everything they've done and rewrite most of the system from scratch.
by tmtvl | 2025-09-29 11:32:27+00:00
Could you maybe elaborate on your statement that...

> Gentoo overlays are better designed than debian/ubuntu PPA(personal package archive)s and AUR(arch user repository).

...because from what the Gentoo wiki states, an overlay is a repository of packages from which Portage will automatically install packages. That is a clear contrast to the AUR from which you manually get a package so you have the chance to inspect it without Pacman automatically going and installing it. For Arch a closer equivalent would be unofficial user repositories.
by incomingpain | 2025-09-29 11:32:46+00:00
Having architected some large projects, then coded, then refactored because original designs didnt work out, eventually getting a working project that does things.

Also now having done the same thing 95% ai coding.

Good taste is good architecting. Knowing what to use; how to use it and when. How to maximize KISS. Simplicity is key.

When is it right to keep it very simple and load it to a dict? When to upgrade to a panda/numpy dataframe? When to go sqlite3? When to go full on DB(postgresql?). Do you need to go that extra step in order to stay with your current design; will the code become complicated and ugly to do that? What are the upsides and downsides?

good taste is the comfort to try a new library that looks like it'll do a better job than what you know how to use now.

Does your script run in memory for long? Is that ok?

Recently I learnt about Python Slots and use them now. You look at: https://www.w3schools.com/python/python_datatypes.asp

And for some reason they dont even mention slots. but omg so much better!
by redleader55 | 2025-09-29 11:33:44+00:00
I see this degradation of the developer and customer experience on mobile as an opportunity for better PWA/web application development. Many things done as an app today could be a PWA, including banking apps. WASM ensures the performance and the browsers have most of the capabilities to do this. I'm sure both Google and Apple will change course when they discover no one does apps anymore.
by iamnothere | 2025-09-29 11:34:22+00:00
Please read comments in full before replying to them:

> US government systems are a hodgepodge of different systems built by different vendors, over different computing eras, many of which lack a primary key relationship with something like your social security number (the current “default” identifier). Many are plagued with duplicate records, data problems, and other issues that prevent easy correlation of records without human verification.
by input_sh | 2025-09-29 11:34:27+00:00
I recently explored wrapping my somewhat-popular website as an app, only to discover that Google wants apps to offer some unique functionalities that the website doesn't support, otherwise they'll reject it as spam listing.

The examples they list of such features are offline support (PWA already allows that), push notifications (browsers already support that), integration with hardware (not applicable), mobile-optimised UI (really?)... all nonsense.

I know they're not strict about this policy as I can name many local apps that are just wrappers of the web version, but I abandoned by idea immediately as it's not beneficial to me in any way to prioritise one particular platform over the others.
by specialist | 2025-09-29 11:35:19+00:00
> The problem with a food delivery network is that it should be a dumb network, not a big profit center.

Exactly.

Networks (markets) operators must be prohibited from competing on their own networks.

Apple's App Store must be spun off as a separate entity.

Amazon cannot offer their own competing products on their Marketplace.

Google must divest their digital advertising from their search engine (or vice versa).

Doctorow & Giblin's Chokepoint Capitalism is a terrific take on our current rentier economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokepoint_Capitalism
by menaerus | 2025-09-29 11:35:58+00:00
No VM, no container. I could check the asm later on but sqrtrec is likely "free" because it was optimized away, no fences in the code neither so this might be an artifact of different versions of gcc being used across two different platforms.

As for the sqrt, I don't think it is unusually slow if we compare it against the results from the table above - it's definitely not an outlier since the recorded range is from 1ns to 15ns and I recorded the value of 8ns. Why is that so is not a question here.

Better question is why are your results such a big outlier?
by saghm | 2025-09-29 11:36:29+00:00
I could easily imagine someone introducing a dependency because it's needed for something, then a few months later someone refactoring to remove the code that used it but not being aware that the dependency wasn't used anywhere else. Repeat this pattern a bunch, and the number of unused dependencies will start climbing. Keep in mind that the more dependencies you have, the less obvious one specific unused dependency in the config files will be (in addition to it likely being easier to introduce yet another one; it's a lot harder to object to dependency N + 1 when you didn't object to the N beforehand).

Without changing the policy around dependencies themselves for a project (which presumably would be an uphill battle for anyone feeling strongly enough about this), the only way to avoid this scenario from happening without tooling would be for people to manually verify that a dependency is still used any time they remove a usage of it. Asking the person who introduces the dependency to keep track of every time someone else introduces another usage of it to the codebase would be burdensome even if you could assume that they wouldn't ever switch jobs/stop contributing to the open source project/take vacations when code is merged in their absence, and realistically I doubt that asking people to notice whenever they remove a use of a dependency and manually verify that the dependency is still used elsewhere would be particularly effective. I don't think there's any way to make this obvious in the absence of tooling, which unfortunately isn't super common in my experience even in projects that make ample use of linting other static checks in CI.

I don't totally agree with the takes that this is from devs not caring about their projects or otherwise phoning it in. Often the projects I've seen struggle with things like this (and even things that are a lot more worrisome than this, like missing or flat-out wrong documentation around stuff like testing locally due to the team relying on unwritten shared knowledge of process) have developers who care deeply about what they're doing, but are stressed, burned-out, and desperately trying to tread water to avoid drowning in the sea of things they'd like to do to improve things. That's not to say that every situation like this is blameless, but unless my experience is greatly out of the ordinary, I'd think that quite a lot of us have been in or at least seen situations like this enough that we should have enough empathy not to jump to conclusions about the state of a project being a direct reflection of how much the devs care. (To be clear, I don't think this is what the parent comment I'm replying to is saying, but it does seem like overall there's a bit of a sentiment similar to this in the thread as a whole, so it feels worth calling out).
by prasadjoglekar | 2025-09-29 11:37:37+00:00
There's a marketing corollary that is called the Modified Pareto. Briefly that it's not 80/20 but 60/20. That is 20% of the heaviest or power users will consume 60% of the product. But that means the 80% will actually consume 40%. That's no longer small enough to ignore, so you have to cater to the light or infrequent user.

https://marketingscience.info/value-paretos-bottom-80/
by sfn42 | 2025-09-29 11:37:42+00:00
The problem is people don't adapt properly. If the business requirements change so much that it invalidates your previous work then you need to re-do the work. But in reality people just duct tape a bunch of workarounds together and you end up with a frankensystem that doesn't do anything right.

It is possible to build systems that can adapt to change, by decoupling and avoiding cross cutting concerns etc you can make a lot of big sweeping changes quite easily in a well designed system. It's just that most developers are bad at software development, they make a horrible mess and then they just keep making it worse while blaming deadlines and management etc.
by dimgl | 2025-09-29 11:38:31+00:00
I can back that claim up. Unfortunately, I've only worked on proprietary codebases and I can't share them. However before I left my previous gig at PermitFlow I was primarily using Claude Code for all of my work.

I don't view LLMs as ways of foregoing the responsibility of writing code and rather see it as my "really smart keyboard". With enough context priming and a well structured codebase I no longer need to spend time writing each line of code and can have Claude do it in a fraction of the time.

I need to start a blog sooner rather than later as I don't agree with the article nor the naysayers. Maybe a year ago I'd say that it's not possible to code with LLM agents. However ever since Cursor's release, LLMs have completely changed my workflow.
by wongarsu | 2025-09-29 11:39:10+00:00
I appreciate the article trying to balance the "mechanist" and "cyborgist" viewpoints.

And even if we subscribe to the mechanist viewpoint ("llms are math, bored isn't a useful descriptor") this still feels like it's measuring something useful. In humans we'd probably call this creativity and drive; having no task and deciding to invent a new programming language or to write poetry, instead of asking the same thing in a loop. Those are useful properties. For example if you used an LLM as a personal assistant you would want it to show some initiative and do quirky or useful things on its own without an explicit prompt to do those things. The test performed in the article is just a very extreme case
by lelanthran | 2025-09-29 11:42:52+00:00
The problem with almost all of those is that most languages won't support it; that's a FFI specific to Rust.

I mean, what do you do with those languages that don't have the concept of lifetime relationships, like Python? Or those in which read/write pointers make no sense (Tcl)? How about languages with linear datatypes? Or languages that don't allow self-referential data structures (like Rust)?

The only practical approach is to have an interface that is the lowest common denominator of most languages, which is what we already have with C.

I did work in CORBA in the 90s (and someone else mentions COM down below, which I also worked a little with), and the way I'd go about it[1] is similar to swig but in a CORBA/COM type fashion - an IDL that will generate bindings for specific languages. This requires quite a lot of prescient thinking - after all, lifetime ownership is a fairly new thing, so who knows what new requirement will come in the future?

In some future language, you may want FFI to encompass closures, in which case you'd have extra syntax for capture by value vs capture by reference, and you may not necessarily want ownership change in the function call (for example on a single-threaded callback function, the value captured by reference is safe for either party to modify).

Nail down the data interface and you're 80% there.

======================

[1] The best way to go about it would be using something like s-expressions: allow some basic execution to encompass every type of object a language might ever need.
by idiotsecant | 2025-09-29 11:43:17+00:00
The difference is that I had a basic experience of that chocolate. The LLM is a corpus of text describing other people's experience of chocolate through the medium of written language, which involves abstraction and is lossy. So only one of us experienced it, the other heard about it over the telephone. Multiply that by every other interaction with the outside world and you have a system that is very good at modelling telephone conversations but that's about it.
by DanielHB | 2025-09-29 11:44:56+00:00
It is hardly worth bothering how readable is "local code".

Following the same patterns across large parts of the codebase is what makes the codebase as a whole readable. Those patterns may even be complex, as long as they are used over and over without too much deviation and flag-explosion the codebase will be readable.

In short local isolated code can be as bad to read as it wants, as long as it doesn't infect the codebase as a whole (like through the use of shared mutable state or through a bad API).
by matthewdgreen | 2025-09-29 11:45:25+00:00
Well, US health insurance is insurance. That’s one function. But it’s also managed healthcare. The management is being performed by a series of large corporations with somewhat broken incentives, with the government backstopping and certifying everything and filling in all the gaps. That’s why other countries achieve such better results with government-managed healthcare, because our system genuinely has very little relationship with the free market and already is a kind of planned system; it’s just an exceedingly inefficient planned system.

But the lesson you should take from this is not “we should just deregulate it a bit and hope the free market takes hold.” This is the planned system we designed in one of the most capitalist countries on earth: it got to the state of being a planned system because the truly competitive market systems kept failing. I’m not sure where you can go to find a truly competitive system that isn’t in some way underpinned and supported by the government (and the US government specifically.) People often point to third world countries where they can pay cash, but I think that’s mostly just rich US people buying luxury healthcare at lower prices, not a real working free-market health system that delivers broadly-shared results.

You have to entertain the hypothesis that when the ideal “free market system” exists nowhere, the reason is because the free market system was tried (here in the US, even) and it worked so poorly that it was replaced with one of the systems that survived. Because that’s the pattern we see everywhere with healthcare (and with roads and fire departments, too, outside of a few exceptions.)

The pharma investment problem is a problem, but just to be clear: it’s a question of financial allocation. There are many ways to solve it that aren’t what we have right now.