MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by wakawaka28 | 2025-09-05 23:37:04+00:00
I think Lunduke probably has moderate or high technical skills. However, the more technical you get, the smaller your audience can be.

I do get a little tired of the woke stuff, but a Youtuber has to follow a specific pattern to get traffic. It's an important message. I'm sure he takes it at least a little personally that he is banned from forums, conferences, talking to various companies about their activities, has his technical achievements (see: the top comment I replied to here, and his awful treatment by OpenSUSE folks), ignored due to irrelevant (and popular) political views, antagonized for being Jewish, etc. He wants to be a tech journalist but he is persecuted over politics. So if he complains about it a lot, I expect that and appreciate him taking the heat for saying what we all think.
by slg | 2025-09-05 23:37:18+00:00
While I agree with the message, I think honesty is important. The Nest gen 3 was released in 2015[1]. People got a 10-14 years out of these devices.

Also, that posts says the thermostat will still work locally so the failure state of the "smart" device here is that it became a "dumb" device after a decade+.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Nest#Nest_Learning_Ther...
by dmoy | 2025-09-05 23:37:21+00:00
> The sad thing is the reason the Bay Area lacks Tokyo-style transit is not technology, but social and political issues

Well and population / population density.

China is similar - the big 15-20m+ metros have crazy good subway systems. But SF bay area is half the low end? 7.5m or so? Harbin is 10m and its subway is kinda meh. Down at 5m metro population in e.g. Changchun or Jinan and it's a pretty piddling subway/city rail system.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-09-05 23:37:21+00:00
>Machine translation today is still just 'okay', not professional quality

"okay" is an overstatement. It's "readable" if you put in triple the effort needed to read proper native language. But you're doing a lot of work re-translating machine languae in your head to understand it.

I guess for businesses that's "good enough". Very few products ever truly get lambasted for bad localization.
by coolspot | 2025-09-05 23:39:01+00:00
Too high. I think NK transit system is incomparably safer and cleaner than BART.

Riding without a ticket? Jail.

Littering on the platform? Straight to jail, right away!

Doing any violent crime in NK transit? Believe it or not - death by firing squad.

Here is a quick overview of how the system works: https://youtu.be/eiyfwZVAzGw?si=CnOMa8F6NkiyhifE
by lgas | 2025-09-05 23:39:56+00:00
I didn't make any claims about that, just that they can't be wrong. And by that, I didn't mean you can't choose the wrong types, just that once you've chosen types that compile they can't be incompatible or other than what they are.

That being said, I've always found the argument that types can be overly restrictive and prevent otherwise valid code from running unconvincing. I've yet to see dynamic code that benefits from this alleged advantage.

Nearly universally the properly typed code for the same thing is better, more reliable and easier for new people to understand and modify. So sure, you can avoid all of this if the types are really what bother you, but it feels a bit like saying "there are stunts I can pull off if I'm not wearing a seatbelt that I just can't physically manage if I am."

If doing stunts is your thing, knock yourself out, but I'd rather wear a seatbelt and be more confident I'm going to get to my destination in one piece.
by j45 | 2025-09-05 23:41:14+00:00
Not quite logical.

Release years aren’t purchase years.

Everyone didn’t have the same purchase year.

And, it’s just a thermostat. When they first came out it was a little novel. Not anymore.

Temperature is a solved problem and algorithm.

There’s no real reason to discontinue them - they do the same thing they always have, connected to the same shared infrastructure.

I highly doubt the cost of cloud, tech increased or decreased since then.

It feels like a form of forced planned obsolescence. Maybe some growth or product folks not hitting their bonus lol.

Gen 1 and Gen 2 were unique also don’t have microphones in them. I know Gen 2 handled microbursting well not sure about other gens.

The truth is the cloud is someone else’s computer and the cloud always costs someone else, if not the customer.

Maybe nests aren’t being replaced fast enough or new nest purchases aren’t growing like before due to other options.

I won’t trust or buy any more Nest devices again or trust the brand. I buy newer Nest devices and cycle them out.

Gen 1 and Gen 2 folks were early adopters and they can find more elsewhere.

There are lots of other better options.

It’s easy to go early adopt the next thing. Home automation has come a long way and those who are trying to earn in the past risk being left in the past.

The device will work locally but api is being removed so the mobile app won’t work and neither will any home automation integrations.

The least they could do is just let people control it directly. We’ll see if it gets unlocked now.
by mleonhard | 2025-09-05 23:41:50+00:00
BART is a government organization and all California government employee pay is public. You can see that BART has about 40 software engineers and they earn about 70% of the market rate:

https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=compute...

https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=compute...

It seems to me that they are over-worked & under-paid and are doing a good job given the circumstances.

NIMBYs have blocked BART in Silicon Valley. BART doesn't reach Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Stanford, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Santa Clara, or Cupertino. A few years ago, it finally reached San Jose.

A separate train (CalTrain) goes from SF through Silicon Valley. Last year they switched to electric trains which are faster and run more frequently. The SF CalTrain station is inconvenient (20-mins walk from downtown, under a highway), but they are working to extend CalTrain to the central SF station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salesforce_Transit_Center#Futu... .

So Silicon Valley transit is getting better, slowly.
by dlcarrier | 2025-09-05 23:41:55+00:00
This looks to me like they are acknowledging that their claims were premature, possibly due to claims of false advertising, but are otherwise carrying forward as they were.

Maybe they'll reach level 4 or higher automation, and will be able to claim full self driving, but like fusion power and post-singularity AI, it seems to be one of those things where the closer we get to it, the further away it is.
by wvenable | 2025-09-05 23:42:33+00:00
I'm also "older" but I don't think that means anything.

> Sure you can look at it[1], but you're not expected to look at Apple Photos database.

How else are you supposed to figure it out? If you're older then you know that you can't rely on the existence or correctness of documentation. Being able to look at JSON and understand it as a human on the wire is huge advantage. JSON being pretty simple in structure is as advantage. I don't see a problem with quoting property names! As for large integers and datetimes, yes that could be much better designed. But that's true of every protocol and file format that has any success.

JSON parsers and writers are common and plentiful and are far less crazy than any complete XML parser/writer library.
by non_aligned | 2025-09-05 23:45:06+00:00
This is fantastic, although the statement about the intended audience cracked me up a bit: "intended for a general audience including ... anyone interested in a concise intro/overview of QM. Prerequisites: linear algebra, calculus, ..."

The PDF is essentially higher math with QM-related narrative interspersed here and there. Even if you're a STEM graduate, I found that these skills atrophy pretty quickly if you're not using them day-to-day in your work. Scientists often vastly overestimate how conversant their readers are with "obvious" prerequisites such as vector calculus.

And you can often tell on HN, because you have a thread where two mathematicians chat with each other, and then everyone else is just relating anecdotes about quantum mechanics.
by yreg | 2025-09-05 23:45:09+00:00
I'm in Europe, so no idea how it's elsewhere, but for me Tesla's network is much more reliable than any competitor which I have used at least a few times.

There are always some stalls that work (usually all of them). I have had plenty of experiences with non-Tesla chargers where I wasn't able to charge. Sometimes it was quite stressful. I no longer navigate to non-Tesla chargers without a healthy battery reserve.
by slg | 2025-09-05 23:45:14+00:00
We don't have to be exact or pedantic. Whatever the original purchase date for individual purchases, I guarantee they are closer to a decade ago than a year ago.

EDIT: That comment was heavily expanded after I replied. It was originally only about the distinction of purchase date. I won't debate the rest of the comment because as I said at the start, "While I agree with the message...". I just don't think this specific case is a particularly good example of what is being argued and therefore arguing it is probably counterproductive.
by standardUser | 2025-09-05 23:47:02+00:00
What does Waymo lack in your opinion to not be considered "full self driving"?

The persistent problem seems to be severe weather, but the gap between the weather a human shouldn't drive in and weather a robot can't drive in will only get smaller. In the end, the reason to own a self-driven vehicle may come down to how many severe weather days you have to endure in your locale.
by jchw | 2025-09-05 23:47:21+00:00
I think that it's actually not an IRL vs Internet discussion dichotomy FWIW, that oversimplifies things a bit too much. For example, I think sympathy and empathy increases as you go from public interaction in major social platform -> 1-on-1 direct message -> audio call -> video call -> IRL private conversation. Many reasons really. Public interactions have public scrutiny, it often is more of a performance than an authentic social interaction. Text conversations are low bandwidth. All internet conversation carries the burden that things you say may be recorded and used against you. And of course, seeing and hearing a human on the other end just naturally will increase empathy.

I hear what you're saying, but I think you are looking at this wrong. I'm not suggesting that IRL social interactions are perfect and Internet ones are hopelessly broken. We have plenty of history to show how IRL social interactions can break down, in small groups or big. What I'm saying is that IRL interactions are better on average than Internet interactions, largely due to the modality and venue that most Internet interactions occur.

Edit: also, it is worth noting that there are definitely robust studies that can back up some of these ideas, which may be a good data point to add into this discussion. That said, I am honestly too lazy to go cite sources right now, to be completely honest with you. (And I know HN is rightly a bit skeptical of psychology studies, since you can pretty much find something to validate anything you want, but there are some actually good and interesting ones.)
by ants_everywhere | 2025-09-05 23:47:46+00:00
Right, but venting is for a long time understood to be bad. In the same way punching your pillow or the wall is bad when you're angry.

Venting is different from expressing your negative emotions healthily. E.g. telling your significant other you are frustrated because of a problem at work is healthy. Venting about the problem, complaining, being sarcastic etc is known to reinforce anger and generally lead to unhealthy outcomes.
by IAmGraydon | 2025-09-05 23:48:19+00:00
How do you think this compares to the fall of the Roman Republic? With all due respect, I would argue that your line of thinking tells me that you don’t really read about the Roman Republic, or at least don’t understand what was happening at the time.

The political disfunction, powerful military figures, extreme wealth divide, and the dynamic of the First Triumvirate all make what the US is going through today look downright civilized. The sheer amount of turmoil made the people in Rome desperate for authoritarianism. The rise of Roman Empire is what they wanted, and what they got. This is the same dynamic that unfolded in 1930s Germany.

I do not at all believe that most people in the US want an actual authoritarian. Trump may think he can implement authoritarianism, but I suspect he will find out just how misguided he is if he truly pushes it.
by xNeil | 2025-09-05 23:48:48+00:00
>You can't possibly believe Musk's fantasies after a couple decades of hilarious (and occasionally dangerous) lies.

Eh, betting against Musk generally seems to be a losing proposition. Starlink alone would have given me faith in his abilities, what Tesla's done with Models 3 and Y and SpaceX with Falcon 9 gives me all the more reason to believe him. Yes, despite the absurd timelines, which I'm generally okay with. (Not OP)
by johnnyanmac | 2025-09-05 23:49:34+00:00
>that the first time most programmers ever think about the ethics of automating away jobs is when they themselves become automated.

It's more about a logical outcome. Automating scripts means existing employees can do other or more work.

AI doesn't feel like that at all. it wants to automate labor itself. And no country has the structure ready for that sort of "post work" world.
by gpm | 2025-09-05 23:49:42+00:00
> Where can I find source that says Anthropic bought the pirated books afterwards? I haven't seen this in any official document.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

> Also, do we know if the newer models were trained without the pirated books?

I'm pretty sure we do but I couldn't swear to it or quickly locate a source.
Chat GPT has no user sumbited feedback
by OOvsuOO | 2025-09-05 23:49:53+00:00
The sidebar menu for chat gpt now gives generic titles for its chats. It no longer gives context based titles because some users complained. Chat GPT just guessed an answer to why they no longer do context based sidebar titles anymore. I tried to send feedback to chat gpt but there's no way. Thanks to Elon? First Principles get rid of everything and ignore the users.

"I agree with you - the old way (topic-based titles) made the sidebar much more useful. When ChatGPT generated a title from the subject of the conversation, it acted like a quick index.

Now with the generic labels ("Summary and timeline"), you have to open each one or remember to rename them, which is extra work and makes it harder to spot past chats at a glance."

"Why OpenAI Might Have Switched Consistency: Generic titles are "safer" because the auto-summarizer sometimes mis-titled chats (e.g., grabbing a detail that didn't represent the whole conversation). Privacy concerns: Some users didn't like sensitive info appearing as sidebar titles. *Technical reasons: Chat title generation has always been a separate summarization step. OpenAI may be testing a lighter/faster method in the Mac app or web portal."
by tzs | 2025-09-05 23:49:54+00:00
Quite pricey though. That one is $1000 on Alibaba.

The problem is the CCS and CHAdeMO is different protocols so an adapter has to be an active adapter.

With CCS to CHAdeMO you need something to power the active electronics in the adapter. I've heard of some that do this by having a cable and plug on the adapter that plug into the car's 12 V port. I've heard of others that have a battery in the adapter.

Compare to adapters between NACS and CCS. NACS and CCS do use the same protocol. They just have a different pinout. The adapters are passive and so can be a lot cheaper.
by Aurornis | 2025-09-05 23:50:37+00:00
This is a settlement. It does not set a precedent nor even admit to wrongdoing.

> otherwise only the big companies who can afford to pay off publishers like Anthropic will be able to do so

Only well funded companies can afford to hire a lot of expensive engineers and train AI models on hundreds of thousands of expensive GPUs, too.

Something tells me many the grassroots LLM training people are less concerned about legality of their source training set than the big companies anyway.
by Terretta | 2025-09-05 23:51:21+00:00
> Just in case: This is not a call for everyone to "pair program" with an AI.

If that's not what you're doing, you're likely doing it wrong.

> If you pair program with someone else on your team, you both learn what the other is thinking. You both become more familiar with what the code is doing, and why it's doing it.

Yes.

> If you "pair program" with an AI, anything it learned, it forgets as soon as the prompt is closed.

Same with humans, including your future self. So pair on docs.

TL;DR: You should absolutely be XP pair programming with your LLM.
by JdeBP | 2025-09-05 23:51:40+00:00
The key concept is learning from the mistakes of others, instead of repeating them. The past several decades provide numerous examples of people picking "internal" top-level domain names that they were 100% positive no-one else would ever use … until someone else did, sometimes as a result of the exact same thinking.

* https://jdebp.uk/FGA/dns-use-domain-names-that-you-own.html

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45144631

You can find the case of dev. in particular discussed in umpteen places here on Hacker News over the years.
by noisy_boy | 2025-09-05 23:53:20+00:00
> The google comparison is superficial. The skill needed is understanding what different modes of AI can and cant do across different domains, knowing when to use it vs when not to, developing judgment about AI content that goes beyond simple fact retrieval.

It is not that superficial. More like you actually have multiple search engines that are competent, instead of a Google monopoly, and you learn which is good for what. We already do that for software where we mix and match. How many people that are using ChatGPT have any idea of model nuances? They still just type in the box and get answers. Loads of people don't even know about Claude. You give them three separate apps with exact same chat mode and they will figure it out which works better for what - doesn't take experience of using them during the years when the brain is still developing. More like a few weeks for an adult.

> knowing when to use it vs when not to, developing judgment about AI content that goes beyond simple fact retrieval

Yes, that requires growing up with independent critical thought, not getting used to accepting AI results at face value - which is what is happening all around us in schools, right now.

> We are creating a massive competency gap by treating AI exposure as somehow more dangerous than social media, which we've already allowed to reshape adolescent development with inarguably negative educational value.

One bad thing doesn't justify another.

> AI is already redefining job requirements and academic expectations. Students who first encounter these tools in college will be competing against peers who've had years to develop working usage patterns and build domain specific applications.

And what are those usage patterns they have had years to develop in school? Typing in a chat box? Sure, some enterprising and talented students may go beyond that but frankly if you have those traits, you'll beat the crap out of mediocre competition in no time. We have two sets of people - who are "software developers" (who think like one, whether they do or work as one or not) and the rest who just want to ask a question and move on. Are we saying that those two sections will converge?

If so, it depends on the state of the AI at that point. If it is more or less the same but just better with jobs requiring more agentic type of automation, sure, that can require some learning on how to use it. Again, that still requires breaking down a problem in discrete steps and managing the feedback loop. That requires critical thinking and are still typing instructions in plain text. Also, you need to be knowledgeable enough to figure out where the AI messed up.

If we are talking much more advanced AI approaching AGI levels, the jobs we are worrying about will be gone and you'll have basically a handful of advanced AI-centric jobs left for which very few will qualify anyway. That is a much bigger problem which can't be fixed by just letting more people use AI.
by tharkun__ | 2025-09-05 23:53:54+00:00
I can't. The LLM (Claude Code really) is just too slow. It is just so slow at doing the things I ask it to do once I'm at the review stage.

Like the initial plan always sounds great and looks great. Then it goes to actually do the changes and proclaims victory after I left it alone doing other stuff, because it takes a while. Then I review what it did and what it didn't do and I inevitably find that it only did half of what it said it would do and did half of what it did do incorrectly despite what it told me what it would do.

The use case here is a large code base that needs changes. Not new feature development on a green field (or a green corner of an established product). And it's just so unbearably frustrating. It's like giving the task to a Junior on probation. I tell them something, they go off for 10 minutes and tell me they're done and I look and find seven holes I need to tell them to fix. But they aren't the Junior that picks up stuff and gets better and needs less supervision. Instead it seems like the context gets more and more polluted and the Junior gets closer and closer to failing his probation.

Many grey hairs added recently, because yeah, we also "have to be faster by using AI" now ...
by tuckerman | 2025-09-05 23:54:45+00:00
The original comment asked what is typical, I am commenting what is typical.

What you describe would be extremely atypical and I can’t imagine any lawyer representing a surrogate would allow that to stand. It’s also nearly universal for IPs to cover legal fees for the surrogate to have an independent representation.

California, as an example, has laws mandating that IPs and Surrogates have separate attorneys for the process. I think most supporters of surrogacy would approve of common sense laws like that everywhere but even without them it’s very standard.
by adsharma | 2025-09-05 23:55:24+00:00
Python -> Mojo -> MLIR ... <target hardware>

Yes, you can write mojo with python syntax and transpile. You'd end up with something similar to Julia's 1.5 language problem.

Since the mojo language is not fully specified, it's hard to understand what language constructs can't be efficiently expressed in the python syntax.

Love MLIR and Mojo as debuggable/performant intermediate languages.
by awesome_dude | 2025-09-05 23:55:49+00:00
I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I've definitely had online discussions that were orders of magnitude more productive than the best IRL conversations on similar subjects, because people felt more free to contribute.

It's so much more productive online that I look for communities that discuss those subjects (eg. Twitter when it was good, or Reddit).

I avoid that IRL because it's so poor.
by rufus_foreman | 2025-09-05 23:55:58+00:00
I work full remote. If they ask me to RTO, I quit and retire. Game over, man.

But, given that, "5 days a week RTO is just beyond the pale"? No. That's just normal for pretty much everyone on the planet.

Top talent? If they're not willing to negotiate on 5 days RTO you need to adjust your ideas of how marketable you are, you're not top talent and you're not a trusted adult, you're a human resource.
by danielheath | 2025-09-05 23:56:03+00:00
I really like the AU tri-prong system for this - high-current plugs/sockets have a physically larger ground connector.

This means you can put a low-current plug (small ground pin) into a high-current socket (large ground slot), but not the other way around.

Only downside I've found so far is that you can't use a high-current-rated extension cord to plug a low-current appliance into a low-current socket.