MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kimixa | 2025-09-30 00:03:55+00:00
I feel there will be a $30-40 bottle that will match your preferences, you just need to find it.

Taste and availability can change on locality - California absolutely loves it's Cabernet Sauvignon, for example. Often to the detriment of other varieties and options IMHO.

And this sort of thing also very much affects what's being imported too. People have an idea of what "French Wine" should be like, which may be very different to the taste preferences in regions of France.
by invisibleink | 2025-09-30 00:04:36+00:00
Building https://multi.dev, an AI coding agent with bunch of FOSS contributors

We took a great amount of learning from tools like Cline, Roo.. After spending some time on their tech as active users/devs, we decided to build multi from scratch with drastically different take on core features, tech stack, ux/devex..

If you are an active user of similar tools, and/or want to try multi.. We want to hear from you.

-- edit: I am one of the core contributors to multi. And we are in the process of open sourcing it.
by gowld | 2025-09-30 00:05:05+00:00
The Fields Medal isn't the only achievement in math.

> based on an ancient premise that old mathematicians can't make new incredible discoveries.

Not true. The Fields Medal is an encouragement to do more work, not a reward for completion.

https://www.ams.org/notices/201501/rnoti-p15.pdf In fact, the strict age limit of forty was only codified at the 1966 Congress, although an informal criterion of youth preceded it. Fields’s remark that is often interpreted as favoring young medalists, that the prize should be “in recognition of work already done” but was “at the same time intended to be an encouragement for further achievement,” is associated with no claim about the age or career status of the recipient. Rather, the stipulation that the award should be given “not alone because of the outstanding character of the achievement but also with a view to encouraging further development along these lines,” was Fields’s suggestion for how “to avoid invidious comparisons” from partisans dissecting candidates’ existing work [18, pp. 173– 174]. What started with a worry about rivalrous national factions became an excuse to narrow the pool of candidates and eventually turned into a restrictive cutoff. It is yet another myth that Fields intended the medal only for the young.

https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201504/rnoti-p327.pdf
by jacquesm | 2025-09-30 00:05:29+00:00
That's a good question and one that I've been wondering about myself. For me it is the very clean abstraction layers. There is zero side-to-side communication it is all broader foundations to narrower verticals plugged in to those. For instance, the networking stack has a process for every layer. That keeps that whole thing manageable and it means that problems can never escape the scope of the process they are in, unlike a 'large' kernel where a botched device driver can bring down the whole system. You can pretty much tear this down to the task scheduler and the loader and rebuild it up without taking the system down. And I had a good idea on how you could replace the scheduler with another one while the system is running.

I'm really curious what - if anything - people will do with it, I think that the fact that an OS like this one powered the BlackBerry (which people loved) should work in its favor, other places where you find this kind of OS is in industrial control and in vehicles. Usually there is some kind of hardware component involved but that's entirely optional, you could use it as a general purpose OS as well.
by haunter | 2025-09-30 00:05:41+00:00
>I don’t know how to stop political violence in America.

"sad young terminally online men" is not an American thing it's a global phenomenon yet America has something that most other countries don't. Simple as that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...

Not even mention this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_State...
by nswizzle31 | 2025-09-30 00:05:44+00:00
I'm trying to incentivize people to build IRL communities instead of AI-related apps because the demand for human interaction FAR outweighs the supply. My platform (https://onthe.town), is basically Shopify for social experience clubs. Anyone can start a club and create events based around bringing random people together IRL based on shared interests. You get your own website and infra that handles signups, payments, and matching.

It's largely based on platform-izing the extremely popular Timeleft app that simply matches 6 random people for dinner. With onthe.town, anyone can create a Timeleft-like app around any concept they're interested in. Some clubs people have created include a golf club (get matched with 3 other people to play golf with), a vinyl record sharing club, a lunch club for biotech networking, and a club to meet other parents for dinner.
by stingraycharles | 2025-09-30 00:05:52+00:00
Yeah, as someone who has been using Claude Code for about 4 months now, I’ve adopted a “be super specific by default”-workflow. It works very well.

I typically use zen-mcp-server’s planning mode to scope out these tasks, refine and iterate on a plan, clear context, and then trigger the implementation.

There’s no way I would have considered “implement fuzzy search” a small feature request. I’m also paranoid about introducing technical debt / crappy code, as in my experience is the #1 reason that LLMs typically work well for new projects but start to degrade after a while: there’s just a lot of spaghetti and debt built up over time.
by dehrmann | 2025-09-30 00:06:23+00:00
> The debt buyers are the same people that created that debt (the people doing the LBO in the first place)

Sometimes, but not always. I did a quick search on who it is for EA, but didn't find anything.

> They force the company they just bought to pay them loan terms they set for the privilege of buying the company they just bought.

If the buyers are also the lenders, yes.

> That's why LBOs are pretty much a corporate Ponzi scheme.

It's not a Ponzi scheme because it's not multi-level and no one's left holding the bag. In the case of buyers also lending, there isn't even a sucker in the deal. If the company goes bankrupt, it either goes into chapter 13 bankruptcy, restructures debt (that the owners are paying?!), then continues doing business, or it goes into chapter 7 bankruptcy, liquidates, and pays debt holders with assets that are sold off. If you bought it and this is your goal, it seems easier to buy the company and immediately sell off its assets. Why bother with the hassle of LBO if the company is worth more dead than alive? Holding the debt is actually a sign of confidence in the company.

With the LBO cases you hear about PE doing, the debt holders can end up holding the bag. It's also not a Ponzi scheme because they're big boys making big boy deals. It's risky debt that's hard to price and everyone knows it.

You could argue employees are left holding the bag, but not really, since the company didn't owe them anything beyond a last paycheck. They're affected, but that's not the same. Bondholders actually lose money.
by wyre | 2025-09-30 00:06:35+00:00
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the vibe coding experience non-coders want, but if it's one-shotting a buildable codebase off of an unspecific prompt, the major breakthrough would have to be brain-computer interfaces so the agent can literally read the user's mind.

If that same person approached a software development company with the same prompt without following up with any other details, they won't get good code back, either. You're not saying it, but this idea that in the future you can tell a computer something like "create photoshop" and get what your expecting is an unrealistic dream that would need mind-reading or a major breakthrough and paradigm shift in understanding and interpreting language.
by mcdeltat | 2025-09-30 00:06:53+00:00
Very soon after reading this I started to doubt my whole life's work in C++... std::flip? Never heard of it before, and I used to read cppreference for fun. And the name smells sus. I don't think the committee would name it "flip" if it did exist. Too short a name for something too niche. I looked at cppreference and saw that yep, this does not exist, so thought maybe this article was some kind of AI hallucination. Finally the author said it was all made up and my mind was at peace once more.
by Chilko | 2025-09-30 00:06:57+00:00
It be worth looking up the I-V curves of solar modules on a datasheet - a key factor is that the maximum power point of a solar module (for a given set of environmental conditions) is really dependent on the voltage that it is running at (whereas the current is more constant based on the light level, up to a certain voltage), so to get the maximum power out the resistance of the load needs to be matched to achieve that maximum power voltage (V_MP).

This is what MPPT controllers do, as this maximum power setpoint will change as environmental conditions change.
by dvliman | 2025-09-30 00:07:55+00:00
I am building an Options: At-the-Money Premiums tracker to help me view all the options premiums on one screen. Here is the app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/options-at-the-money-premiums/...

Launched on Reddit last week: https://www.reddit.com/r/Optionswheel/comments/1nlelbp/comme...

If you guys trade options (selling CSP and CC), I would love to hear your feedback.
by api | 2025-09-30 00:07:58+00:00
This reminds me of numerous pieces I’ve read by authors on why not to try to become an author, like this: https://www.elysian.press/p/publishing-industry-truth

What it boils down to is that these are fields with a supply glut of people and/or product.

My take is: never try to enter such a field unless you really think you have a chance at performing in the top 20% of all entrants in that field. Anything else is a dice roll. A few people get lucky, but statistically it won’t be you.

Discouraging people from trying is a good filter for these fields, since the only people who will ignore such advice is people who really deeply love it or are really driven. Those are the people most likely to ascend to the top 20%. Nobody gets that good at something they aren’t driven to do.

It’s also a way to maybe make things better for people in those fields in the future. If the only people who enter the field are those who are deeply driven, it might cut down on the overpopulation problem.

Edit: some fields are worse than others of course. Glance at up and coming Hollywood actors and actresses for a worst case. Of the ones who are not nepo babies, look into how much work and hustle and luck (combined) it took for them to make it. Most are insanely good looking talented people who started acting as kids and hustled for years and then got lucky. It’s wild.

Physics is not that bad, but it’s not great. Fiction writing might be that bad, especially since the money is less even if someone does make it.
by Galaco | 2025-09-30 00:08:08+00:00
If you pause your subscription, Claude.ai breaks. I paused my subscription, and my account immediately transitioned to free. It has removed my invoice history, and attempts to upgrade again fail with an internal error. Their chatbot is telling me to navigate to UI elements that don't exist, and free users do not have the option of human support.

So I'm stuck; my sub is paused, and I cannot either cancel, or unpause and cannot speak to a human to solve this because the pause process took away all possibility of human interaction.

This is the future we live in.
by anyfoo | 2025-09-30 00:08:45+00:00
I just opened both pictures in separate tabs, the browser says that both are 640x480.

But that's a good point nonetheless: That 640x480 picture is certainly upscaled somehow, otherwise it would be absolutely tiny on a retina display. That upscaling might certainly lead to very different results from both images.

However, when I download the images and open them in Preview, I get the same result. When I zoom in, I do see individual pixels. It looks like it just did nearest neighbor upscaling, so I'm not sure upscaling is at fault here.
by foobarian | 2025-09-30 00:09:03+00:00
> I think "people want frictionless ways to purchase products" is a PM pipe dream more than a description of reality.

I get what example you are referring to, but there are degrees here. For example the Buy Now flow really is handy; and I find I favor merchants that let me pay by scanning some kinda QR code from Apple Pay or Venmo. I definitely don't miss the friction of having to go dig out my credit card, mistype the cc#, type the wrong cvc if Amex, repeat the purchase after getting declined once and responding to a fraud text, etc.
by shanecp | 2025-09-30 00:09:06+00:00
What they don't mention is all the tooling, MCPs and other stuff they've added to make this work. It's not 30 hours out of the box. It's probably heavily guard-railed, with a lot of validated plans, checklists and verification points they can check. It's similar to 'lab conditions', you won't get that output in real-world situations.
by pancakemouse | 2025-09-30 00:10:19+00:00
Something I've seen discussed very little is that Claude Code can be opened in a directory tree of any type of document you like (reports, spreadsheets, designs, papers, research, ...) and you can play around in all sorts of ways. Anthropic themselves hint at this by saying their whole organisation uses it, but the `Code` moniker is probably limiting adoption. They could release a generalised agent with a friendlier UI tomorrow and get much wider workplace adoption.
by LarsDu88 | 2025-09-30 00:10:46+00:00
I can retrospectively look back at folks in my (non computer science) PhD cohort, and say that this bearish outlook is only true for folks who stay in science too long or pursue actual academic careers.

The vast majority of folks I know flipped into more lucrative careers in industry... some of which require PhDs or Masters degrees.

Furthermore, it really depends on your track. You can wind up in a lab studying something totally obscure or you can be in a lab with multi-million dollar funding and state-of-the-art equipment you can't find elsewhere.

Sadly the most well funded scientific research right now is actually being bankrolled by techbro oligarchs for tax deduction purposes, even more so with the cuts to US funding.
by jiggawatts | 2025-09-30 00:11:00+00:00
> but it's much more expensive than a regular index lookup.

It doesn't have to be, it just "is" in some database engines for various historical reasons.

I.e.: PostgreSQL 18 is the first version to support "B-tree Skip Scan" operators: https://neon.com/postgresql/postgresql-18/skip-scan-btree

Other database engines are capable of this kind of thing to various degrees.
by throw10920 | 2025-09-30 00:11:37+00:00
> Strings are not numbers, even if some part of their content "looks like a number."

Irrelevant and intentionally obtuse. Filenames can't be anything but strings - there's literally no way to mark part of a filename as "this is an integer", so the idea that "strings are not numbers" is ridiculous because the only way to encode numbers (which people constantly want to encode) is as part of a string - which means that parts of filenames are numbers, because that's exactly how people use them.

> Problem is, this is your preference for a specific situation. Which may not be another person's preference in the same situation nor yours in a different situation.

> So what are programs to do?

> Display strings in a consistent, documented, manner. Which is lexicographical ordering in all cases lacking meta-data to indicate otherwise.

These do not follow from each other.

First, the assertion that "peoples' preferences are different, so we shouldn't pick an overwhelmingly common preference" is laughably false. The vast majority of computer users (which happen to not be people on HN) prefer "sort numbers by number rather than by UTF-8 value", so that's simply the correct way to sort.

Second, even regardless of the above, there's nothing preventing a "by name" sorting from being consistent and documented.

Either way, this line of reasoning is just wrong.
by socalgal2 | 2025-09-30 00:11:39+00:00
I don't think it would change at all. Look at creators on Youtube. The majority are clickbait and other crap, people trying to get money and/or influence. It doesn't require advertising by the platform. All it requires is the internet itself and nearly everyone on it. Ads might have accelerated things but the basic incentives are "more viewers = more money / influence", with or without ads. And those incentives eventually lead to where we are.
by recallingmemory | 2025-09-30 00:11:56+00:00
Social media companies have managed to figure out what can keep a person glued to a screen for hours on end. The result is a clearly fucked up generation that took in endless staged content as reality and their brains have been shaped accordingly. Young men do not have a working model of the world that is based in reality.

Congratulations to the social media companies and their infinite ad revenue, and so sorry to the rest of us who have to live in a Tiktok society.
by mingus88 | 2025-09-30 00:12:51+00:00
For those of us online in the 90s we don’t have to wonder

It was literally a utopia before business came along. Every site was built from passion, with no expectation of getting anything in return. It was a global community centered around sharing knowledge.

I’d go one step further and ban the consolidation of platforms by billionaires. The open internet no longer exists or will ever exist again
by tialaramex | 2025-09-30 00:13:20+00:00
What Bill wrote, on his own web site, about his own language is simply this:

> For closures to work correctly would require a form of automatic memory management which will never be implemented into Odin.

I suppose you can insist Bill thinks "correctly" means all that verbiage about unified types - but then a reasonable question would be why doesn't Odin provide these "not correct" closures people enjoy in other languages ?

RAII is entirely irrelevant, the disposal of a closure over a Goose is the same as disposal of a Goose value itself. In practice I expect a language like Odin would prefer to close over references, but again Odin is able to dispose of references so what's the problem?
by Liftyee | 2025-09-30 00:13:58+00:00
The specifics that enable Apple's proprietary functionality are contained in the proprietary silicon, software, etc. not the schematics.

Granted, there are some specifics that could be interesting from a design analysis perspective like the bill of materials (BoM) cost, or the specific choices made in the design (e.g. using a buck regulator IC to improve efficiency, tradeoffs between cost and redundancy, etc...).

I maintain that most of the specifics contained in the schematic aren't useful for an engineer designing another phone. An experienced electronic engineer facing the same design problems would make similar decisions regarding which components to use, based on known principles - but that's only if they could access Apple's proprietary chips in the first place.

Everything we can see in the schematic could have been generated from a teardown as you mentioned. Not sure what "certain consumers" you're referring to - I imagine the schematics would help repair shops most in knowing what test points to diagnose and what components are involved.

Huawei, Xiaomi, et al. don't need Apple's schematics. They have plenty of design engineers of their own, and can't access Apple's chips anyway. The parts that do use market-available chips don't have any critical details that might take away Apple's edge.
by nybsjytm | 2025-09-30 00:14:26+00:00
> I know they are so close to a computationally-assisted proof of counterexample that it is virtually inevitable at this point.

That's a strong claim. Is it based on more than the linked work on some model problems from fluid mechanics?

I will say that I dread the discourse if it works out, since I don't believe enough people will understand that using a PINN to get new solutions of differential equations has substantially no similarity to asking ChatGPT (or AlphaProof etc) for a proof of a conjecture. And there'll be a lot of people trying to hide the difference.
by regnull | 2025-09-30 00:14:35+00:00
The Russian exercise was named Caucasus 2008 and units of the North Caucasus Military District, including the 58th Army, took part. The exercise included training to aid peacekeeping forces stationed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.[135] During exercises, a pamphlet named "Soldier! Know your probable enemy!" was circulated among the Russian soldiers. The pamphlet described the Georgian Armed Forces.[136] Russian troops stayed near the border with Georgia after the end of their exercise on 2 August, instead of going back to their barracks.[113] Later, Dale Herspring, an expert on Russian military affairs at Kansas State University, described the Russian exercise as "exactly what they executed in Georgia just a few weeks later [...] a complete dress rehearsal."[134]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

what a coincidence. Georgia started the war just after the "exercises" where russia rehearsed just that war.
by purerandomness | 2025-09-30 00:14:49+00:00
Avoiding comments is an exercise in thinking how to rename or refactor a function, or a variable in such a way that a junior developer will be able to read it like prose, and immediately understand what's going on.

It's cognitively stressing, but is beneficial for juniors, and developers new to the codebase, just as it is for senior developers to reduce the mental overhead for the reader.

It's always good to spend an extra minute thinking how to avoid a comment.

Of course there are exceptions, but the mental exercise trying to avoid having that exception is always worth it.

Comments are instant technical debt.

Especially junior developers will be extremely confused and slowed down by having to read both, the comment, and then the code, which was refactored in the meantime and does the opposite of what the comment said.
by evilDagmar | 2025-09-30 00:15:24+00:00
It's amusing how the article says it's "potentially" in violations of US hacking laws.

That practice is _definitely_ a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. No employer's IT is going to have it not be a violation for a user to share their password with someone else, which even in the weakest boilerplate immediately revokes their rights to the account. At that point _any_ use of those credentials is very much a violation of the CFAA.
by hackyhacky | 2025-09-30 00:15:27+00:00
This seems like an obvious functional-style function that C++ should have, given the trend for functional idioms in recent versions. However, even a C++ cynic such as myself was shocked by the length and (to me) incomprehensible implementation at the end of the article. A definition of that complexity for something so simple tells me that something has gone off the rails. The equivalent function in Haskell, fwiw, can be implemented in its entirety as follows:

flip :: (a -> b -> c) -> b -> a -> c flip f x y = f y x
by int_19h | 2025-09-30 00:15:45+00:00
Realistically, though, even if AI doesn't only make slop, the amount of effort it takes to ensure that it's not slop is even harder to justify than maintaining a "clean" codebase manually used to be. More and more you'll see that "rough draft pass" ending up as shipped product.

Why? Well, it happened that way when manual tradecraft gave way to automated manufacturing in just about every other industry, so why should ours be exempt?