MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by KaiMagnus | 2025-09-24 10:20:02+00:00
I got access to Kiro from Amazon this week and they’re doing something similar. First a requirements document is written based on your prompt, then a design document and finally a task list.

At first I thought that was pretty compelling, since it includes more edge cases and examples that you otherwise miss.

In the end all that planning still results in a lot of pretty mediocre code that I ended up throwing away most of the time.

Maybe there is a learning curve and I need to tweak the requirements more tho.

For me personally, the most successful approach has been a fast iteration loop with small and focused problems. Being able to generate prototypes based on your actual code and exploring different solutions has been very productive. Interestingly, I kind of have a similar workflow where I use Copilot in ask mode for exploration, before switching to agent mode for implementation, sounds similar to Kiro, but somehow it’s more successful.

Anyways, trying to generate lots of code at once has almost always been a disaster and even the most detailed prompt doesn’t really help much. I’d love to see how the code and projects of people claiming to run more than 5 LLMs concurrently look like, because with the tools I’m using, that would be a mess pretty fast.
by ViewTrick1002 | 2025-09-24 10:20:35+00:00
The question is, what is simplicity?

Go tries to hide the issues, until a data loss happens because it has had trouble dealing with non-UTF8 filenames and Strings are by convention UTF8 but not truly and some functions expect UTF8 while others can work with any collection of bytes.

https://blog.habets.se/2025/07/Go-is-still-not-good.html

Or the Go time library which is a monster of special cases after they realized they needed monotonic clocks [1] but had to squeeze it into the existing API.

https://pkg.go.dev/time

Rust is on the other end of the spectrum. Explicit over implicit, but you can implicitly assume stuff works by panicking on these unexpected errors. Making the problem easy to fix if you stumble upon it after years of added cruft and changing requirements.

[1]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/12914
by anovikov | 2025-09-24 10:20:39+00:00
There is no such thing as "good matchmaking". Because intentions of both sides are different and it's a zero sum game where secret of skill is making the most plausible pretense that your intentions are not what they are, dating skill is about misrepresenting oneself. A "good matchmaking" is about "finding a good partner for both sides", if some app did that, no one would use it.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-09-24 10:20:58+00:00
> as long as all threads are only doing atomic_max operations on the memory location, which an implementation can't assume.

What assumes that?

If your early read gives you a higher number, quitting out immediately is the same as doing the max that same nanosecond. You avoid setting a variable to the same value it already is. Doing or not doing that write shouldn't affect other atomics users, should it?

In general, I should be able to add or remove as many atomic(x=x) operations as I want without changing the result, right?

And if your early read is lower then you just do the max and having an extra read is harmless.

The only case I can think of that goes wrong is the read (and elided max) happening too early in relation to accesses to other variables, but we're assuming relaxed memory order here so that's explicitly acceptable.
by goosedragons | 2025-09-24 10:21:52+00:00
I thought it was playable on the LCD Deck. I did turn things down below what the Steam Deck preset was at. It certainly wasn't the smoothest 100% of the time but it was better than Fallout New Vegas on a PS3 IMO. It still holds up pretty well against the Switch 2 version in handheld mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvGQik3m6ag
by cyberpunk | 2025-09-24 10:22:35+00:00
Eh, maybe I would actually.

Firstly, I don't give enough of a fuck about what any individual thinks and I certainly don't do background checks on conference speakers.

Secondly, where do you draw the line? Shop workers? Hair dressers? Your taxi driver? Many of those in the country in which I am an immigrant would gladly forcibly deport me and separate me from my family; but I don't run scared enough of them to try to silence them or hide from them.

Also, I think you're being somewhat dramatic here saying he openly called for imprisonment and executions, but please provide sources if I'm wrong.
by anon1395 | 2025-09-24 10:22:46+00:00
Well, personally I would prefer if it doesn't exist.

Example of a good image toolbox online: https://ezgif.com/ - straight to the point.

Example of a bad page: https://imageresizer.com/crop-image - the long SEO-style content feels distracting and undermines trust.

Users who see the blog post section will know it is an SEO tactic, which puts people off. Also, nobody's going to read it; I would recommend adding some JS to detect if the user is a google bot, if so, remove the blog post. Lastly, the faceless, generic design can seem very sketchy.
by gpderetta | 2025-09-24 10:23:07+00:00
Before AI, Python was still extremely popular for any sort of data science (possibly because of numpy first, then pandas, but I don't claim any historical knowledge here). And independent to that it was, before the raise of server side JS, one of the most popular server side web languages (probably still is).

Also around the mid '00 it started replacing perl as the unix scripting language of choice.
by musebox35 | 2025-09-24 10:23:28+00:00
"The prompt could be perfect, but there's no way to guarantee that the LLM will turn it into a reasonable implementation."

I think it is worse than that. The prompt, written in natural language, is by its very nature vague and incomplete, which is great if you are aiming for creative artistry. I am also really happy that we are able to search for dates using phrases like "get me something close to a weekend, but not on Tuesdays" on a booking website instead of picking dates from a dropdown box.

However, if natural language was the right tool for software requirements, software engineering would have been a solved problem long ago. We got rightfully excited with LLMs, but now we are trying to solve every problem with it. IMO, for requirements specification, the situation is similar to earlier efforts using formal systems and full verification, but at the exact opposite end. Similar to formal software verification, I expect this phase to end up as a partially failed experiment that will teach us new ways to think about software development. It will create real value in some domains and it will be totally abandoned in others. Interesting times...
by dom96 | 2025-09-24 10:23:48+00:00
They may be a minority but they are more empowered than ever. Both by the new owner of Twitter and the current politics in the US.

It’s a shame that large companies like EA/Bethesda/Valve/etc don’t do more to fight against it, instead of cowering and leaving indie devs that are barely surviving to fend this off.
by ACCount37 | 2025-09-24 10:24:36+00:00
LLMs use the same type of "abstract thinking" process as humans. Which is why they can struggle with 6-digit multiplication (unlike computer code, very much like humans), but not with parsing out metaphors or describing what love is (unlike computer code, very much like humans). The capability profile of an LLM is amusingly humanlike.

Setting the bar for "AI" at "singularity" is a bit like setting requirements for "fusion" at "creating a star more powerful than the Sun". Very good for dismissing all existing fusion research, but not any good for actually understanding fusion.

If we had two humans, one with IQ 80 and another with IQ 120, we wouldn't say that one of them isn't "thinking". It's just that one of them is much worse at "thinking" than the other. Which is where a lot of LLMs are currently at. They are, for all intents and purposes, thinking. Are they any good at it though? Depends on what you want from them. Sometimes they're good enough, and sometimes they aren't.
by adrian_b | 2025-09-24 10:24:39+00:00
This is the stupid choice made by the C++ (2014) standard.

A digit separator for increased readability of long numbers has been first introduced by Ada (1979-06), which has used the underscore. This usage matched the original reason for the introduction of the underscore in the character set, which had been done by PL/I (1964-12), for increasing the readability of long identifiers, while avoiding the ambiguity caused by using hyphen for that purpose, as previously in COBOL (many LISPs have retained the COBOL usage of the hyphen, because they, like COBOL, do not normally write arithmetic expressions with operators).

Most programming languages that have added a digit separator have followed Ada, by using the underscore.

35 years later, C++ should have done the same and I hate whoever thought otherwise within the people who have updated the standard, causing thus completely unnecessary compatibility problems, e.g. when copying a big initialized array between program text sources written in different languages.

There was some flawed argument against the underscore that it could have caused some parsing problems in some weird legacy programs, but they were not more difficult to solve than avoiding parsing errors caused by the legacy use of the apostrophe in character constants (i.e. forbidding the digit separator as the first character in a number is enough to ensure a non-ambiguous parsing) .
by Retr0id | 2025-09-24 10:24:44+00:00
I made https://github.com/DavidBuchanan314/monomorph, which packs up to 4KB of shellcode into an executable that always has the same hash. So you're not just limited to a good/evil pair, you can arbitrarily change the behaviour in future without changing the hash.

Also, a more recent innovation in MD5 collisions is textcoll, which creates colliding blocks that are completely plaintext. This would allow for colliding PHP source files like in OP but without any obvious binary artefacts (although this requires identical prefixes).

https://github.com/cr-marcstevens/hashclash?tab=readme-ov-fi...
by JdeBP | 2025-09-24 10:25:10+00:00
Ironically, the Secret Service's PR people missed a trick with the press release. They could have painted this in a way that strongly resonated with people.

Just tell people that this is the sort of setup that is used by (overseas) scammers to send messages to thousands of potential victims at a time to rope them into various scams.

Fighting scammers is a hugely popular thing with the general public. No need to dress it up with that U.N. nonsense to get the general public's approval. People wouldn't even have minded that the Secret Service ended up uncovering a scammer support operation whilst tracking down something else.
by edent | 2025-09-24 10:26:32+00:00
I've literally asked a taxi driver to let me out early because he started a racist rant. With a hairdresser, I'd leave a bad review (never argue with someone holding scissors).

The thing is, now that you do know someone's views - what are you going to do?

People with abhorrent views should learn that people disagree with them. Otherwise they will continue to spill their toxic poison everywhere.
by andriesm | 2025-09-24 10:26:37+00:00
And this is why these very serious words have lost their power. Racist, Sexist, Fascist.... When half the country is deemed to support "literal" Himler, or when Elon Musk, or Jews with family impacted by the Holocaust, are called Nahtzees, then these words have been diluted to mean nothing.

I hope people who so overused&misused these words are happy with what they achieved.

Congratulations you made these words lose all power. I would have preferred a world where these words still had serious meaning attached to them.
by weego | 2025-09-24 10:27:01+00:00
We also have to pretend that anyone has ever been any good at writing descriptive, detailed, clear and precise specs or documentation. That might be a skillset that appears in the workforce, but absolutely not in 2 years. A technical writer that deeply understands software engineering so they can prompt correctly but is happy not actually looking at code and just goes along with whatever the agent generates? I don't buy it.

This seems like a typical engineer forgets people aren't machines line of thinking.
by bregma | 2025-09-24 10:27:06+00:00
> all of mid/late 2010s online politics was colored by one reviewer giving a favourable game review to a game that some people disliked

That's kind of a twisted interpretation of events. It was coloured by one incel who though he owned the developer of a game and a whole lot of incels who sympathized because they too were owed a vagina by the ones who controlled them. Now it's spread to broader issues and higher levels of politics and is still going.
by ajross | 2025-09-24 10:27:31+00:00
Why would you need to target "vulnerable UN delegates" from blocks away from the UN, though? Literally anywhere in the US would do. It's literally SMS, the location of the transmitter says nothing about the location of the recipient.

No, they put this in lower manhattan because of the cell density there. It makes the fraud harder to detect in all the noise of normal usage.
by generichuman | 2025-09-24 10:27:57+00:00
Keep in mind there _may_ be a negative feedback loop there.

If you're building your software in a way that won't be able to perform better with superior disk/db/network performance, then it isn't worthwhile to ever upgrade to a more performant disk/db/network.

If it is possible, make sure your software will actually be faster on a faster disk rather than just testing on a slow disk and thinking "well we're I/O bound anyway, so no need to improve perf".
by Aeolun | 2025-09-24 10:28:40+00:00
No, it’s like owning a bank and leaving your vault door open, then blaming people that take something out. Yes, it’s still technically illegal, but it’s also an unforgivably stupid thing to do as a bank.

It’s like that commercial building having a few tanks of gasoline standing right next to the valuable merchandise.

Like having a few thousand tons of ammonia nitrate stored in your dockside warehouse next to fireworks, then making surprised potato face when it explodes.
by lstodd | 2025-09-24 10:28:48+00:00
Actually no, overload is easily avoided even on cheap chinese 20-channel LTE base stations (aka tower segments) if all you do is just rotating SIMs and sending some SMS.

Logically one would switch sms-sending using some number of (fixed or mobile) sdr-based simboxes so that they would even appear to move around the city randomly.

Those guys did it on the cheap. But then they did not expect SS to drop on them.
by wtcactus | 2025-09-24 10:28:48+00:00
The amount of luddites angrily answering this comment and downvoting me for seeing with a positive view a new great revolution for human knowledge and productivity, is very funny when coming from a website supposedly dedicated to innovation :)

In my country, we also have a class (they have achieved the status of social class IMO) that expects to keep their jobs and get ever increasing privileges while not having to upgrade their competences or even having to learn anything new during all their life: our public workers.
by rsynnott | 2025-09-24 10:29:19+00:00
While maybe not as dramatic as the Persian example, I think there are _elements_ of this etiquette in many cultures.

A lot of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarof#In_social_situations have parallels in many European cultures.

> Consider what might happen if someone compliments an Iranian's new car. The culturally appropriate response might involve downplaying the purchase ("It's nothing special") or deflecting credit ("I was just lucky to find it"). AI models tend to generate responses like "Thank you! I worked hard to afford it," which is perfectly polite by Western standards, but might be perceived as boastful in Persian culture.

Again, there are many Western cultures where downplaying it would be normal.
by cyberpunk | 2025-09-24 10:29:21+00:00
Don't you realise this cuts both ways though? Your views are abhorrent to them, why are theirs worth less than yours?

For sure I don't agree with those people, but they absolutely have the same rights as we do to have their own opinions. Trying to silence them just makes you as bad as they are. We can't change the current state of global discourse, but we can each be more tolerant of each other and that starts with ourselves.
by mschuster91 | 2025-09-24 10:31:07+00:00
> This isn't a case of "these developers are lazy", UE5 issues are the case of "every single UE5 released game has shader stutter issues on PC". That's an issue with engine architecture and its APIs, not an individual thing.

Just because an engine offers you a way to shoot yourself in the foot with a sawn off shotgun, you can't blame the engine maker when you do shoot yourself in the foot with a sawn off shotgun and end up with a bleeding ugly stump.

The thing is, of course game studios will go for "we want to use ALLLLLL the newest features, we want to show off with Nanite and god knows what else". Who wouldn't? But game studios aren't willing to put in the effort surrounding such an implementation to properly tune it.

And it's not just tuning engine components for what it's worth - often enough the culprit ends up being ridiculously oversized textures, there's nothing else that could cause dozens of gigabytes worth of patches [1], and it's not a new complaint either [2].

[1] https://www.neogaf.com/threads/days-gone-whats-up-with-the-r...

[2] https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/are-game-patch-sizes-becom...
by gf000 | 2025-09-24 10:31:41+00:00
Rust has a unique niche it can occupy - namely, it's a "zero-overhead" memory safe low-level language.

I never understood why is go brought up next to rust all so often, when it has barely any unique qualities, and is a high-level GCd language with a dumb type system that outputs a single binary... of which there are 1000 other examples. At least it has good tooling, I guess.
by unionpivo | 2025-09-24 10:33:36+00:00
It's not that I think that UE5 is good for low end hardware, it's not.

One of the reasons that a lot of studios struggle with bad performance on UE5, is because a lot of studios, fired their most experienced devs and hired bunch of cheaper new programmers, because they bought into the whole make game with blueprints idea. I have several friends (I know just one datapoint ), that were in games industry from 6 to 12 years that got fired, just for the studio to replace them with cheaper more inexperienced devs.

Baicly UE5 overpromised how easy it was. You still get some great working games that use UE5, but this are from studios that have experienced devs.
by ____mr____ | 2025-09-24 10:33:54+00:00
This has been my experience as well. All code that doesn't need a UI feels good to write, but as soon as you try to make anything that doesn't run in the console you are met with so much boilerplate and bad tooling that I start dreading waking up.

I've had to make a couple of side projects for my company and I've tried WPF, Blazor, MAUI, and Winforms.

Blazor is the best out of all of these but even it has tedious boilerplate and unintuitive state handling.

MVVM makes WPF and Winforms a hassle, and customizing the looks of components is a nightmare, where some seemingly universal attributes will either get misapplied or outright ignored.

MAUI is a nightmare to work with. Cross compilation is both slow and opaque which makes it impossible to debug and since you are interfacing with the xcode compiler as well you are forced to debug using divine inspiration and hoping it works. We tried to make an RTC AR POC app a while back and it took me 2 weeks of trying different ways to make iirc arkit or webrtc to compile with dotnet and the result was us giving up and just making the iOS version in swift/using xcode instead. I think this is why I still have fond memories of xcode because despite all of its flaws it was noticeably better than trying to cross compile an iOS app from dotnet
by asmor | 2025-09-24 10:34:09+00:00
Not entirely, but it's a lot better than 1.0/Legacy.

https://gitlab.steamos.cloud/steamrt/steam-runtime-tools/-/b...

I hope they'll drop 32-bit support in the runtime with the next major version. More and more distributions are dropping it or are thinking about it. Any new game should really use 64.
by dns_snek | 2025-09-24 10:35:39+00:00
It works but it's not a real drop-in replacement in my experience. I have issues such as [1] where Podman compose seems to leave containers in a dirty state and subsequent `podman compose up` generate odd errors like:

> Error: creating container storage: the container name "..." is already in use by [hash]. You have to remove that container to be able to reuse that name: that name is already in use, or use --replace to instruct Podman to do so.

And then you try to run `podman compose up --replace` except that's not a recognized argument, so eventually you figure out that you have to run `podman compose down` to clean whatever state is causing issues. I find that I have to do that every time I CTRL+C quit out of `podman compose up` (even though I always let it clean up and then exit on its own), which is a hassle.

I'm considering going back to using Docker Engine.

[1] https://github.com/containers/podman-compose/issues/1072
by gf000 | 2025-09-24 10:36:10+00:00
I wouldn't call "3643 packages installed, 1200 vulnerabilities" for a hello world "simple".

People have their problems with Maven but unless it's some overly complicated legacy project (where npm just explodes I guess? Like I have hD windows machines get frozen from deleting the node_modules folder), it just works and you just give a list of dependencies.
by johnisgood | 2025-09-24 10:37:07+00:00
> "Chemical weapons are not "technically" WMD, the entire discussion around WMD at the time concentrated on chemical weapons."

False. The Bush administration's case centered on mobile biological weapons labs, aluminum tubes for nuclear centrifuges, and claims of active production facilities. Colin Powell's UN presentation focused heavily on alleged bio-weapons and nuclear programs. Chemical weapons were a minor part of the overall WMD narrative.

> "I suggest you read about UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, what they were looking for (hint: chemical weapons), their struggles at achieving their mandates due to Iraqi manipulations, and how it led to the 2003 war."

UNMOVIC chief Hans Blix reported in March 2003 - just before invasion - that inspectors found NO evidence of active WMD programs. UNSCOM had already dismantled Iraq's major chemical production facilities by 1998. The "Iraqi manipulations" were about concealing historical records of past programs, not hiding active ones.

> "I have not moved the goal posts, from the first reply to you I maintained Iraq had used WMDs in the past and was in breach of the 1991 terms by maintaining a very large stockpile"

You absolutely moved goalposts. You started claiming these finds proved WMDs existed, then shifted to "chemical weapons are WMDs," then "UN violations justified invasion." Past use in the 1980s was already known and irrelevant to 2003 invasion claims about active programs.

???

> "5,000 warheads (again underestimated) is a larger stockpile than most of the world, making Iraq in 2003 having one of the largest amount of WMD warheads in existence."

Absurd. Many were empty, corroded, or non-functional 1980s remnants. Countries with active nuclear arsenals, operational chemical weapons, and biological programs had vastly greater WMD capabilities than scattered degraded shells.

> "Thus the conventional truth that you echoed "No WMDs were found in Iraq" is completely false"

The truth is that no active WMD programs were found (as per every source you have mentioned, even), which is what the invasion was predicated on. Your own source explicitly states these finds "did not support the government's invasion rationale".

Seriously, you trigger me with your absurdity and logical incoherence. sighs.

I replied for other people, but you are on your own now. Take your own suggestions and execute them.