MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by littlecranky67 | 2025-09-22 13:01:21+00:00
> That's kind of irrelevant, this technology is meant to be safer and held to a higher standard

I don't think that is the case. We will judge FSD whether you make more or less accidents than humans, not necessarily in the same situations. The computer is allowed to make mistakes that a human wouldn't, if in reverse the computer makes a lot less mistakes in situations where humans would.

Given that >90% of accidents are easily avoidable (speeding, not keeping enough safety distance, drunk/tired driving, distraction due to smartphone usages) I think we will see FSD be safer on average very quickly.
Show HN: Agentic Code – Make AI coding tools follow real workflows
by shinpr | 2025-09-22 13:01:28+00:00
I got tired of my AI deleting tests and forgetting context after 10 messages.

So we built Agentic Code. Just add an AGENTS.md file and your AI actually: - Plans before coding - Writes tests first - Checks everything works before moving on

Zero config. Works with any tool (Codex CLI, Cursor, Aider, etc.):

``` npx github:shinpr/agentic-code my-project ```

It just works.

Repo: https://github.com/shinpr/agentic-code
by shinpr | 2025-09-22 13:01:45+00:00
We built this because every AI coding session was chaotic. The model would forget my architecture decisions, delete tests when adding features, and basically act like a junior dev with amnesia.

Agentic Code makes your AI follow the same steps you'd expect from a real teammate. It reads project rules, plans the work, writes test skeletons first (new in v0.2), then implements with quality checks.

The magic is progressive rule loading - small tasks get minimal overhead, complex features get full workflows with approval gates. Your AI adapts to the task complexity automatically.

Been using it internally for months. Every session now follows predictable patterns instead of chaos.

There's also a short demo GIF in the README if you want to see it in action.

Happy to answer any questions!
by kennywinker | 2025-09-22 13:01:50+00:00
You seem confident of your statement that bulimia is socially contagious. I am asking you to clarify what that means to you specifically.

If you’d like to link a paper that has informed your understanding, i’d be happy to read it. But telling me to “read up on it” is a weird dodge of a direct question. Have you read up on it?

I have read a little, not a lot - but what i have read makes a case for some influence of social groups but doesn’t make a case for eating disorders being contagious like viruses.
by that_guy_iain | 2025-09-22 13:01:58+00:00
I only mentioned one program. A program that is literally comparable because it's literally what is being replaced. That program has been public knowledge in media such as TV shows and movies for decades. So when we're fear-mongering, we should only compare with that, and we should see what effects it had and the nonsense being used for fear-mongering.

Also, Signal was released not because of end-to-end encryption but because the founder sold WhatsApp and wasn't happy with the direction.
by potato3732842 | 2025-09-22 13:02:23+00:00
It's been years since I've seen anything you couldn't drive over that wasn't in the travel lane.

Around here anything big enough to matter gets reported, the cops fling it to the side of the road and it gets picked up on a schedule because they always pick things up a few weeks before they mow (presumably because hitting garbage isn't great for the mowers).
by close04 | 2025-09-22 13:02:48+00:00
> I have to admit that your friend has a point

Do they? "Many humans" would hit that? The humans in the car spotted the debris at least 8s before the impact. I don't think any humans would hit that in broad daylight unless they were asleep, completely drunk, or somehow managed to not look at the road for a full 10s. These are the worst drivers, and there aren't that many because the punishment can go up to criminal charges.

The argument that "a human would have made that mistake" backfires, showing that every Tesla equipped with the "safer than a human driver" FSD is in fact at best at "worst human driver" level. But if we still like the "humans also..." argument, then the FSD should face the same punishment a human would in these situations and have its rights to drive any car revoked.
by mnky9800n | 2025-09-22 13:02:49+00:00
I am not Xenophobic of Russia. I speak and read Russian and my partner is Russian. I also don’t hate the world outside of the USA. In have lived in that world for more than ten years. I simply think that trump is a patsy. Whether he knows he is or not doesn’t matter. Putin plays him like a fiddle.

That being said, I absolutely completely agree with you that American problems are caused by Americans.
by hopelite | 2025-09-22 13:03:35+00:00
It’s interesting that you say that because besides the other perspectives on this type of matter, something I have come across is accusations of AI text that at the very least were not at all clearly AI, but also seemed like the accusation was simply a coping mechanism to deflect/evade having to accept or face new informatio/reality that was counter to one’s mental model or framework.

I think of that recent situation where video showed two black bags supposedly being thrown out of a White House window. I don’t really care enough to find out whether or not that video was real, but I did find it interesting that Trump immediately dismissed it as AI after immediately glancing at it. Regardless of whether it was real or not, it seems to me that his immediate “that’s AI” response was just a rather new form of lie, a type of blame shifting to AI.

I would argue that as stupid and meaningless as that kind of example is, a better response would have been something like “we will look into it” and then moving on. But it also feels like blaming AI for innocuous things preconditioned the public to deny and gaslight the public on other, more important things, e.g., for example claiming that Israel raining down bombs on civilian people in Gaza and mass murdering probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people in what looks like the start to the Terminator wars, is merely a figment of your imagination because you will be told that AI was used and AI will be scrubbed off that information so you also will never be told about it. It’s memory holed in the TelescreenAI.

These types of developments don’t exactly fill me with optimism. Remember how in 1984 the war never ended, always changed, while at the same time both always existed and also did not actually exist? It feels like we are heading in that direction, the gaslighting form here on out, especially in all the forms of overt and clandestine war will be so off the charts that it will likely cause unpredictable mass “hysterias” and various undulations in societies.

Most people have no idea just how much media is used to train humans like an AI would be trained or controlled, now throw in ever more believable AI generated audio, visual, and not even to mention the text slop.
by Coffeewine | 2025-09-22 13:03:42+00:00
I’ll defend airbus a little - there are flight laws that more or less provide at any given moment as much automation as is possible given the state of the sensors and computers. So it doesn’t just go ‘oops, a sensor failed, now you have direct control of the plane.’

It does have the same problem - if 99.999% of your flight time is spent in normal law you are not especially ready to operate in one of the alternate laws or god forbid direct law, which is similar to the case of a driver who perhaps accustomed to the system forget how to drive.

But I think we have a ways before we get there. If the car could detect issues earlier and more gradually notify the driver that they need to take control, most every driver at present retains the knowledge of how to directly operate a car with non-navigational automation (abs as you mentioned, power stearing, etc)
by everyone | 2025-09-22 13:04:01+00:00
Ive used chatGPT to help me learn new stuff about which I know nothing (this is it's best use imo) and also write boilerplatey functions, eg. write a function that does precisely X.

Having it integrated into my IDE sounds like a nightmare though. Even the "intellisense" stuff in visual studio is annoying af and I have to turn it off to stop it auto-wrecking my code (eg. adding tonnes of pointless using statement). I dont know how the integrated llm would actually work, but I defo dont want that.
by bonoboTP | 2025-09-22 13:04:10+00:00
I'll go against the grain and say that fumbling is how you learn. The easier it is to get to the end of the tutorial, the less you learn in the process. If you learn math from a bad book, you have to organize your own notes, to untangle the mess. If it's laid out all neat and clear like a straight highway, you never wrestle it out with the concepts and you don't learn.
by bryant | 2025-09-22 13:04:11+00:00
for what it's worth: add 9 degrees F (or 18 if it's easier to remember) for every 5 degrees C (10 C, easier), and peg 32F to 0C. You get:

-40F=-40C

-22F=-30C

-4F =-20C

14F =-10C

32F = 0C

50F = 10C

68F = 20C

86F = 30C

104F= 40C

and then approximate in between from there. It's quick enough for me now that I skip the 2x+30.
by eynsham | 2025-09-22 13:04:21+00:00
> To get in, you need 4 A* from an independent schools

This is not, generally, true. Cambridge tends to have higher offers, and I had a friend offered 5A*+S1 (STEP), but that’s mostly because he buggered up his interview (and he was taking 5 A-levels). The standard offer at Oxford for mathematics is A*A*A, which is exactly what those applying from any public school will be asked to achieve.

> or just 3 As from state schools

Not for maths. For easy courses like PPE, someone who misses a standard offer of A*AA might be let off by a few grades. People at public schools who miss their offers are much likelier to be a bit thick.
by sandworm101 | 2025-09-22 13:05:03+00:00
Yes. Humans would. Which is why the car should be able to handle the impact. My honda civic has had worse without issue. The suspension should be beefy enough to absorb the impact with, at worst, a blown tire. That the car has broken suspension says to me that teslas are still too fragile, biuld more like performance cars than everyday drivers.
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-09-22 13:05:12+00:00
One of my biggest criticisms of Elon is that he rarely takes accountability for his words and nobody ever holds him accountable by asking directly. This isn't a high bar to clear, but some people continuously excuse him as being "overly-eager" in his predictions. If that was the case, he could still provide reasonable updates when a predicted date is missed along with an explanation, even if it's just: "Hey, it turns out this problem was much more difficult than we initially expected and it'll take longer". A lot of the problems that he's trying to solve are actually quite difficult, so it's understandable that predictions will be imprecise... But when you realize that your predictions are going to be wrong, you should have the basic decency to update people.

When you're wielding immense amounts of money, power, and influence I think it's worth trying to do the bare-minimum to hold people accountable for their words and claims. Otherwise your words are meaningless.
by coldpie | 2025-09-22 13:05:20+00:00
The good news is this AI stuff is not profitable. Big companies and VCs are subsidizing all this AI slop. If it had cost this moron $5 to generate the slop to file this bug they probably would not have bothered. Hopefully the bubble bursts soon, very hard, and forces the money people to figure out how to charge for these services.
by OgsyedIE | 2025-09-22 13:05:26+00:00
One of the most prominent examples among many others of presenting as extreme a false persona in western culture is the phenomenon of "closeting" in right-wing communities.

One example of a TV show on the topic, popularly regarded as hilarious and nauseating, has its own Wikipedia page [1] and a wide selection of reaction clips on YouTube.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Husband%27s_Not_Gay
by divan | 2025-09-22 13:05:32+00:00
When you create a struct with another embedded struct (possibly from other package):

type Foo struct { somepackage.Bar URL string }

you don't want to depend on whether Bar already have URL. Your depth level has higher priority.

Even more, imagine in the future authors of `somepackage` decided to add URL to their struct and it suddendly started to break your code from being compiled.

Example in the OP article is a corner case where this behavior is creating ambiguity, indeed. Yet, it's documented and intentional.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-09-22 13:06:03+00:00
I used to look at things this way too, but I now see this picture as incomplete, missing a crucial detail. There exist another dimension to our reality, beyond the inanimate, objective one we normally study through physics and life sciences. That dimension is the social dimension. It has its own rules, and for everyone at almost all times, it's more directly relevant to survival and happiness than actual physics.

An example I also posted in another comment: you can be objectively right about the color of the sky, but that won't save you from becoming dinner to wild animals after your people cast you out for believing differently.

We've evolved to navigate this social dimension as much as physical one, because we're social creatures and other people have forever been a part of our environment. Recognizing that, and recognizing that this social reality is more relevant than physical one, is IMO the key to understanding why people behave they do - why they believe obvious bullshit, and refuse to align their beliefs with the truth of physical reality, despite ample and indisputable evidence. It's the key to understand why seemingly smart people say and believe dumb things, especially after they start a career in sales or politics. It's all because, for almost everyone and in almost every case, being seen as in good standing in one's social circles is much more directly relevant to everyday experience and long and happy life, than getting some facts right.

Having that understanding, it becomes more apparent than just about the only way to convince people to change their mind, is to make things relevant to them personally in either dimension, and at a larger scale, to bring those two dimension more in alignment.
by derelicta | 2025-09-22 13:06:20+00:00
> A logical next step would be for POTUS to declare himself as the supreme leader of the world, emend educational materials to propound the idea that the US is superior to other tributary states, quell all internal cries of undemocratic practices, and ban books that promote historical knowledge to avoid unnecessary dissent

My brother in Christ, you Americans do this already and have been doing this at least since the end of WW2. Ever wondered why communism couldn't spread in Northern Europe, South America or many places of Asia?
by intended | 2025-09-22 13:06:46+00:00
You too ?

I’ve been looking at this and have stopped talking to friends in the US, because my urge is to tell them to GTFO.

And I feel like I’m going to sound crazy to them.

But the thing I keep remembering is a conversation with a student in the UK, post Brexit, but while they were figuring out how to do execute.

They were so earnest and hopeful, that the country would find a way through. So much so, that even with a background in finance and macroeconomics, I felt that maybe they would thread the needle.

I don’t see a path to the midterms, forget anything beyond that - and it seems so extreme to state, that I am quiet.
by ilaksh | 2025-09-22 13:07:14+00:00
I wonder if there could be some kind of platform where you have to pay a $5 deposit or something to be able to post bugs. If you waste people's time with total nonsense then you lose the $5 and can no longer report. If it's less egregious than this, like they at least made a human effort, then maybe you keep some of the deposit. Although maybe $10 or $50 would be better.
by IgorPartola | 2025-09-22 13:07:23+00:00
Ok let me reframe it like this: the collective intelligence of a random group of people is bounded by the collective intelligence of its top N% members, ranked by intelligence, where N is some relatively small number.”

If you assume a bell curve for intelligence, then it is primarily the people who are two standard deviations and up from median that are driving innovation, assuming the group allows such individuals to do so. In a small group this might be just one person, in a nation of hundreds of millions it would be single digits of millions, etc.

If the whole group is actively hostile towards this or there is a systematic barrier to it, such as the intelligentsia purge under Stalin, then there is probably going to be another factor that is much stronger at bounding the maximum intelligence.

I postulates that this holds true for any group where the average intelligence is close to 100 IQ or any other metric you want to use to designate the median intelligence in the human population overall.

If you get together a group of people who are already all over two standard deviations up from the overall median you will probably get a different calculation for the upper bound because higher order terms will become more significant, such as specialities, age, experience, etc. But when we are talking about societies, you are always talking about comparing to the median. As far as I know something like a median intelligence slowly trends up in humans over centuries but it is slow enough that there aren’t societies where their median intelligence is a lot lower or higher than any other society in existence at the same time.

Ants are a terrible example due to using a completely different intelligence model. They are incapable of recognizing innovation, so even if you throw in a group of Fermat ants into the mix, they will still end up working as just slightly more efficient drones. This fits into the model above as the society being set up with an active barrier to allowing its smartest members to innovate.
by ndriscoll | 2025-09-22 13:07:41+00:00
This work is more focused on proof assistants. i.e. programming languages designed for highly generic algorithms (mathematical proofs). I don't see how miscommunication or bugs are possible in this context. The assumptions and conclusions are all laid out in the types. Barring a bug in the type checker or use of e.g. `sorry`, a proof that compiles shouldn't be able to contain a bug.
by naasking | 2025-09-22 13:08:09+00:00
> If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.

Not unless you can present some proof of this. Your implicit assumption that we should care about outcomes over principles has its own set of moral failures, like the repugnant conclusion.
by simpaticoder | 2025-09-22 13:08:41+00:00
I've always wondered about the feasibility of adding a reflective solar shield between Venus and Sol to cut the feedback loop that keeps surface temps so high, eventually reducing cloud cover and revealing what lies beneath. In addition, such a project might be good practice in case we ever needed a modified version for Earth, and may even be useful to add energy to celestial bodies (e.g. heat up the dark side of an asteroid by placing it at the focus of a large parabolic mirror). Venus having an atmosphere and having almost the same mass as Earth has always made it, not Mars, my favorite target for terraforming and colonization.
by IanCal | 2025-09-22 13:08:47+00:00
> For me, the ultimate laptop bag is one that looks nothing like a laptop bag; it should look like nothing special at all.

That sounds like almost any regular backpack then. They can also be pretty weather proof, don't need to be carried in one hand, aren't open topped showing what's inside easily, and padded. Any simple and cheap backpack would solve this exact problem but better surely, unless your desire is to be different rather than just to move your laptop from one place to another with little ceremony.
by WJW | 2025-09-22 13:09:10+00:00
The original quote doesn't say anything about COBOL, or about mainframes for that matter. It speaks about "systems only one or two people understand", which seems normal enough. You can write incomprehensible software in any language if the specs are convoluted enough, and a bank that has existed for over half a century will almost inevitably be a mishmash of poorly integrated systems written over multiple decades.

Sometimes at different banks which were subsequently merged with, sometimes by a consultancy which has long since gone bankrupt, sometimes with a compiler that is no longer available. It's a miracle the system works at all.
by zzzeek | 2025-09-22 13:09:19+00:00
I rant about Elon a lot but can someone just explain to me how this keeps going on ? FSD is almost completely a solved problem by the likes of Waymo etc. Why does anyone care what Tesla is failing to do with FSD? Is this all about, "how can we invent FSD without lidar"? Why are we bothering, because cybertruck owners don't want a dorky box on top of their truck? Does their truck already not look ridiculous?
by snapplebobapple | 2025-09-22 13:09:28+00:00
>The lesson which Swiss social insurance administrators have learned from the insurance business generally is that client behavior usually changes in response to administrative actions--and that benefit levels should be structured to account for these changes.

This isn't what I am talking about as a problem with the socialism/communism/etc, it's a basic feature of repeated models with intelligent agents (of which life is a passable example of) If you keep a system the same people will maximize their own benefit over time within it. I think it's a big part of why systems with lots of checks and balances work so well over strong hierarchies. They are inherently unstable (and in the best case unstable in a way that destroys socially sub optimal behaviour like market power abuse). The dynamism prevents the worst of the power concentration that happens in hierarchies.

I personally don't think you can convince many of the crap-artists from believing their crap because it has a bunch of religious qualities to it so is very hard to deprogram. It would be nice if we stopped letting these people anywhere near children with this crap so as to avoid the worst of the brain cancer spreading but that's probably the extent of what we can do. The idea that there is some bad rich guy causing all your personal problems and all one has to do to fix your problems is steal more from that rich guy is alluring because the alternative of fixing yourself is hard and people seem to have a myriad of mechanisms to other problems to be able to endure them.
by potato3732842 | 2025-09-22 13:09:30+00:00
Those are called retreads and they are not uncommon worldwide. If you're seeing anything other than long thin strips of tread on the road it's not a retread related failure.

Every now and then the Karens get to screeching about it and it reaches a critical mass and the NHTSA does a study and they find that most of the debris you're seeing has nothing to do with retreads. Here's the summary of a recent one:

https://www.moderntiredealer.com/industry-news/commercial-bu...