MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by arxell | 2025-09-23 21:36:55+00:00
Totally agree on the consumer and SMB play (which is why we're stealthily working on it :). I'm curious what capabilities the next generation of models (and HW) will provide that doesn't exist now. Considering Ryzen 395 / Digits / etc can achieve 40-50+ T/s on capable mid-size models (e.g., OSS120B/Qwen-Next/GLM Air) with some headroom for STT and a lean TTS, I think now is the time to enter but seems to me the 2 key things that are lacking are 1) reliable low-latency multi-modal streaming voice frameworks for STT+STT and 2) reliable fast and secure UI Computer use (without relying on optional accessibility tags/meta).

My greatest concern for local AI solutions like this is the centrality of email and the obvious security concerns surrounding email auth.
by bombcar | 2025-09-23 21:37:00+00:00
Even where it's not legal, there's often ways around it - if one student is willing to be the "fall guy" so there's only ever one person on the lease.

The SRO bans went explicitly against a form of "hotel" really which was more individualistic.

An example is seen in Blues Brothers, before Carrie Fischer remodels it; probably to install higher density.
by varjag | 2025-09-23 21:37:03+00:00
A few weeks later, @hellovai and I paired on shipping 35k LOC to BAML, adding cancellation support and WASM compilation - features the team estimated would take a senior engineer 3-5 days each.

Sorry, had they effectively estimated that an engineer should produce 4-6KLOC per day (that's before genAI)?
by karmakurtisaani | 2025-09-23 21:37:20+00:00
I don't see the point of asking this question. Like, sure, all physical systems follow certain rules, so any such process will develop in a way that it look like a computation of an algorithm. Also, evolution itself is constantly optimizing organisms to best adapt to their environment, just like a computation.

So asking if life is a computation seems mostly like a semantic musing. Define "life" and define "computation", then see if they're the same.
by runako | 2025-09-23 21:37:31+00:00
> indirectly say that the person who wrote the piece is a bad writer

or a good writer. A lot of the so-called tells are things that are more likely to be done by professional writers under the care of a professional editor. For example, many people assume the presence of an em dash means text was written by an LLM, when obviously LLMs did not invent punctuation marks.
by kibwen | 2025-09-23 21:37:41+00:00
> And the more nested the format becomes, with arrays of dicts, or dicts of arrays, the harder it is to follow.

While I have some minor annoyances with TOML, I counterintuitively consider it a strength of the format that nesting quickly becomes untenable, because it produces pressure on the designers of config file schemas to keep nesting to a minimum.

Maybe some projects have a legitimate need for something more complex, but IMO config files are at their best when they're just key-value pairs organized into sections.
by kelnos | 2025-09-23 21:37:49+00:00
Actually, the US is responsible for Iran's actions. We're the ones who meddled in their government and pushed them to the point they're at today.

Regardless, it's laughable to think that regular Iranian citizens are just as responsible for their theocratic dictatorship as Americans are for the US's (crumbling) representative democracy. Those two things are not the same at all. Your average Iranian has zero influence over what the Iranian government does. The average American... put Trump in office, either by voting for him or by abstaining.
by JohnFen | 2025-09-23 21:38:06+00:00
> I'm not advocating against social norms, but rather specifically about 'etiquette' like how people aren't supposed to wear hats indoors, or that you should end all your sentences with sir or ma'am to be considered polite.

But those etiquette things are also emergent social norms, no different than the others. And they absolutely do change over time. Very few people consider wearing a hat indoors or not ending all your sentences with "sir" or "ma'am" rude anymore, for instance.
by beeflet | 2025-09-23 21:38:25+00:00
>When you can put a ChatGPT-class model locally on every desktop or phone, people will use it even if the accuracy or safety isn't quite there.

Will they though?

>Just look at how people are using Grok on Twitter, or how they're pasting ChatGPT output to win online arguments, or how they're trusting Google AI snippets. This is only gonna escalate.

But will they though?
by cactusplant7374 | 2025-09-23 21:38:40+00:00
> From President Biden on down, administration officials “created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation,” Alphabet said, claiming it “has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds.”

This actually surprised me because I thought (and maybe still think) that it was Google employees that led the charge on this one.
by rck | 2025-09-23 21:38:45+00:00
This feels like the kind of popsci that's written for people who already agree with the author - there's nothing resembling an argument, or even a definition of "computation." There are nods to Church-Turing, but the leap from "every effectively calculable function is computable" to "life is a computation" is larger than anything you could fit in a book.
by softwaredoug | 2025-09-23 21:39:03+00:00
I'm very pro-vaccines, I don't think the 2020 election was stolen. But I think we have to realize silencing people doesn't work. It just causes the ideas to metastasize. A lot of people will say all kinds of craziness, and you just have to let it ride so most of us can roll our eyes at it.
by noobermin | 2025-09-23 21:39:25+00:00
I did a cursory scan and some of these seem not my cup of tea, but honestly ogpf looks rather pleasant for quick plots. Thanks! I might use this.

That said, the point of these being external libraries and thus making them a bit less convenient still sort of stands, as being external libraries means you need to link them which exposes more CS tier stuff (installing libraries, make files, etc) that distracts from just learning codes, which again just motivates using a tool that abstracts some of that behind a managed package and library system.

I'm assuming you could use things like lfortran in jupyter which I imagine might allow these things to be bundled, although I haven't followed that effort as of late.
by scoopdewoop | 2025-09-23 21:39:57+00:00
I understood and considered both things you could have meant. Either way I think you come off as an armchair coder that overstates what rust safety actually is (its not abstract, i enumerated it). You are doing rust a disservice in the most stereotypical way. I have no more time for this, going to go play one of hundred of thousands of gibberish games.
by AlotOfReading | 2025-09-23 21:40:21+00:00
I'm not making either of those arguments. I'm not even using IOCCC as a pejorative association. The comment you're responding to explicitly compares IOCCC code to poetry and Lewis Carroll. One thing I am saying is that most code isn't written for those kinds of purposes. I can't imagine that's a controversial statement though.

I'm open to suggestions on how to clarify things as you're the second comment to misunderstand it and I'm not sure how to better explain it.
by ChrisArchitect | 2025-09-23 21:40:31+00:00
Related:

Shopify, pulling strings at Ruby Central, forces Bundler and RubyGems takeover

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390

Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45299170

A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45325792
by palata | 2025-09-23 21:40:33+00:00
> Sure, if you go back to when we were all monkeys, we are obviously using more energy per capita.

We keep using more and more energy per capita, period. You can go back 10 000 years, 200 years or 100 years, it's the same.

> If you go back to WW2, The West is using far less energy per capita, even when you account for imports.

This is blatantly wrong.

> Sorry, you can't say, globally we use more energy, so every usage of energy is causing us to use more energy. It's not that simple.

It is that simple: what you wrote is called a tautology: we use more energy, so we use more energy. And every new usage of energy is causing us to use more energy.

If you use more, you use more. How is that not simple? :-)
by bangaladore | 2025-09-23 21:40:49+00:00
I don't use Blazor, but your point is still about solving a "problem" that might not exist.

> Avoiding shipping 10-20MB of WASM code

Do you have examples of this? I'm seeing more like 1-2 MB, and most of that is the runtime, which will be cached. This is very comparable to any other framework.

> Blazor uses 45x the memory compared to vanilla JS and up to 3000x the KBs.

Which doesn't matter unless it actually affects outcomes.
by shoo_pl | 2025-09-23 21:40:50+00:00
Not to mention that every time you ssh to another server your keyboard stops working correctly.

The solution is on their website:

> infocmp -x xterm-ghostty | ssh YOUR-SERVER -- tic -x -

I mean... I could learn what it does, but no way on earth I am going to be typing something like that every time I want to ssh somewhere.

(This is somehow fixed in 1.2 but it requires additional entry in the config for whatever reason. Can't it just work?)
by CuriouslyC | 2025-09-23 21:41:02+00:00
Agents __SHOULD NOT__ verify their own code. They know they wrote it, and they act biased. You should have a separate agent with instructions to red team the hell out of a commit, be strict, but not nitpick/bikeshed, and you should actually run multiple review agents with slightly different areas of focus since if you try to run one agent for everything it'll miss lots of stuff. A panel of security, performance, business correctness and architecture/elegance agents (armed with a good covering set of code context + the diff) will harden a PR very quickly.
by balamatom | 2025-09-23 21:41:46+00:00
>it's bad and wrong

And, as with so many blatantly bad and wrong things in modern development, someone will show up just to scream at you confusedly if you as much as think of solving it somehow better (e.g. how you describe) because they have mastered the officially endorsed badwrong way (and even that with great difficulty) thus you'd be stealing their cat turds

>I regret having read it.

It makes me happy that you do!
by DiscourseFan | 2025-09-23 21:41:59+00:00
The story of Israel and Hamas is a story of the force of modernity overcome by babarism against a barbarism borne from the horror of modernity. The author made an error in believing that barbarism is ever justified for its own sake, as a reaction. Nobody will question that violence is unnecessary for the cause of freedom, but what Hamas did was not tactical, it was an indulgent revenge cloaked in the guise of righteous anger. But personal feelings, percieved wrongs, are meaningless in the real world. The only thing that is right is eliminating the conditions of possibility for such senseless violence, and neither Israel nor Hamas has made any genuine efforts to do so.
by pmdr | 2025-09-23 21:42:25+00:00
I've always met his non-tech posts with an eye-roll after at most skimming through them.

> 1. You are unaware of DHH’s more recent favoured topics

No, apparently I wasn't fully updated. Looks likes he's turned it up a notch or two.

> 2. You don’t think there is a problem with DHH’s opinions

Tech-related ones I agree with. Political ones, I mostly don't. Now should he be censored or 'canceled' for his opinions? I don't think so. Criticized? Absolutely.

His once wrote on his blog that politics should stay out of tech. I think he's beginning to break away from that, and even though he's not explicitly tying his views to his products as far as I can see, he risks undoing all the good work.
by bwfan123 | 2025-09-23 21:42:26+00:00
there are criticisms of life as classical computation or in a more restricted context, cognition as computation [1] - one of which amounts to this: for any computation, there is a frame of reference in which that computation can be modeled, and if so, that frame of reference itself cannot be modeled by said computation.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/#GodIn...
by matheist | 2025-09-23 21:42:40+00:00
Oh now I understand. I thought your ab and ba were single tokens (even though that doesn't make sense in context). Once you point out they're separate tokens, I follow you. Thank you!

Edit: that's a great example

Edit 2: even more fun: training data is [ab, ab, ba, bb, bb, bb]. Then constrained sampling flips your likelihood from 1:2 to 2:1
by Shock9889 | 2025-09-23 21:43:18+00:00
It's a beautiful story, but honestly If Alexei really wanted to help Anna, he could've tried to ease her in their group, for example, by inviting her to a less stressful setting: a library, a friendly coffee date, etc.

Anna's behaviour indicates social anxiety grown into general avoidance (speaking from my own experience), and what's described in this story is the worst possible way to help a person with this condition. Alexei felt good about himself though, I suppose.
by sanderjd | 2025-09-23 21:43:43+00:00
Seems like a much riskier move to me. Maybe this will just blow over and it will all work out for them, but I wouldn't feel certain of that outcome if I were them.

Agreed that if they had created and fully controlled the whole thing from the start, like your Facebook example, that would make more sense. But this aggressive addition of a new owner and removal of existing owners and maintainers seems very hostile and risky to me.
by zanellato19 | 2025-09-23 21:44:12+00:00
I think pretty much any non trivial C example has memory safety issues. It doesn't mean that they aren't useful and can't be used. But time and time again we have seen security reports that point to memory issues. So no, I don't think I'm asking for something obvious, quite the contrary. I think the claim that it's possible to write big C programs that are memory safe is really strong and I heavily disagree with it.
by jaredklewis | 2025-09-23 21:44:17+00:00
Well, I didn't know the origin, that's interesting. I'm still very skeptical of the rule.

There are other fire safety rules in the US that are considered sacred, like residential buildings more than three floors having multiple staircases, but these building codes don't exist in Japan or Europe and fire deaths per capita are just about the same. Meanwhile, it significantly increases the cost of building housing in the US.

I imagine there are lots of places without this socket rule, and if some economist would look at the rates of electrical fires between these places, that would be amazing.

I just hate this pattern of regulation in general. Step 1: identify problem (some building materials can cause cancer). Step 2: Come up with some countermeasure (put a sign on every building saying that the building materials might cause cancer). And then they stop. They forgot step 3! Step 3: Check if your countermeasure actually did anything useful! Did cancer rates go down after prop 65? Yes, but when when you control for smoking rates, no, the effect of prop 65 seems to be nothing.
by afiodorov | 2025-09-23 21:44:24+00:00
> It was uncomfortable at first. I had to learn to let go of reading every line of PR code. I still read the tests pretty carefully, but the specs became our source of truth for what was being built and why.

This is exactly right. Our role is shifting from writing implementation details to defining and verifying behavior.

I recently needed to add recursive uploads to a complex S3-to-SFTP Python operator that had a dozen path manipulation flags. My process was:

* Extract the existing behavior into a clear spec (i.e., get the unit tests passing).

* Expand that spec to cover the new recursive functionality.

* Hand the problem and the tests to a coding agent.

I quickly realized I didn't need to understand the old code at all. My entire focus was on whether the new code was faithful to the spec. This is the future: our value will be in demonstrating correctness through verification, while the code itself becomes an implementation detail handled by an agent.
by daxfohl | 2025-09-23 21:44:25+00:00
Yeah I'd love to hear more about that. Like the way I imagine things working currently is "get requirement", "implement requirement", more or less following existing patterns and not doing too much thinking or changing of the existing structure.

But what I'd love to see is, if it has an engineering design step, could it step back and say "we're starting to see this system evolve to a place where a <CQRS, event-sourcing, server-driven-state-machine, etc> might be a better architectural match, and so here's a proposal to evolve things in that direction as a first step."

Something like Kent Beck's "for each desired change, make the change easy (warning: this may be hard), then make the easy change." If we can get to a point where AI tools can make those kinds of tradeoffs, that's where I think things get slightly dangerous.

OTOH if AI models are writing all the code, and AI models have contexts that far exceed what humans can keep in their head at once, then maybe for these agents everything is an easy change. In which case, well, I guess having human SWEs in the loop would do more harm than good at that point.
by mitchellh | 2025-09-23 21:44:59+00:00
> (This is somehow fixed in 1.2 but it requires additional entry in the config for whatever reason. Can't it just work?)

"For whatever reason": because it requires modifying `ssh` and doing that by default is a really sketchy thing to do because it is a very security sensitive tool. No program (Ghostty included) should be mucking with that by default. We want users to be aware.

"Can't it just work?": No, because the entire mechanism is flawed, and I didn't invent the mechanism. It's like asking, "why must I drive to my destination, can't I just teleport?" The entire premise of the question is silly, and it's not the car's fault (Ghostty is the car in this example). For those who want to learn more about "the mechanism": read Ghostty's terminfo page, but also just do some light web searching on how terminfo works. Its a total nightmare.

I really wish that weren't the case, I really do. I promise its just as annoying to me as a user and more annoying to me as a maintainer to have to hear people complain about this repeatedly when I'm not doing anything wrong, personally. I'm playing by the rules. The rules are just bullshit.

We'll continue to make enhancements to improve this while we wait for Ghostty's terminfo to propagate to every machine in the world. It will, it'll just take... a long time. Next up we plan on introducing a `ghostty +ssh` command that you can drop-in replace most `ssh` usage with and it'll automagically just work.
by kgeist | 2025-09-23 21:45:47+00:00
So any pure function is Markovian then? They too only depend on their input and are blind to previous invocations. I’m just trying to understand the practical purpose of calling something a Markov chain beyond small sizes, because if we allow the state to be of any size, I’m not sure what the usefulness is: anything can be called a Markov chain if you concatenate all input data of any size into one blob and interpret it as "one state."
by anuarsh | 2025-09-23 21:45:58+00:00
1tok/2s is the best I got on my PC, thanks to MoE architecture of qwen3-next-80B. gpt-oss-20B is slower because I load all single layer experts to GPU and unpack weights (4bit -> bf16) each time. While with qwen3-next I load only active experts (normally 150 out of 512). Probably I could do the same with gpt-oss.
by spondylosaurus | 2025-09-23 21:46:15+00:00
Given the cartoons and references to fact-checking, I assume this is about the New Yorker (and not the NYT as another commenter suggested), but I'm a bit surprised because the New Yorker has been one of the most vocal outlets speaking out about the plight of Palestinians, even prior to the current assault on Gaza. Which obviously doesn't preclude the possibility that this guy's coworkers were weird and shitty to him, but like, the NYer has not been shy about discussing civilians casualties in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, or featuring guest pieces from Palestinian authors.

Chotiner alone has done at least a few dozen interviews in the past few years where he's made his opposition to the war in Gaza very clear, and (famously) made its supporters look very stupid and callous by letting them trip over their own words. But... Chotiner himself is a white guy (or at least I assume?), so there is that. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Could very well be some ugly office politics that this author is right to be upset about, even if I'm skeptical about his commentary on the effects of those politics on the NYer's reporting.
by lesuorac | 2025-09-23 21:46:33+00:00
I would hope so.

The guy who spawned the whole vaccine's causes autism wasn't actually claiming _all_ vaccines cause autism. It was a commercial endeavor for people to buy his vaccine [1].

Granted, if you notice something is bad (say lead in gasoline) it's pretty worthwhile for you to profit from improving it. But the thing actually needs to be demonstrable bad.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud
by iLoveOncall | 2025-09-23 21:47:16+00:00
> Within an hour or so, I had a PR fixing a bug which was approved by the maintainer the next morning

An hour for 14 lines of code. Not sure how this shows any productivity gain from AI. It's clear that it's not the code writing that is the bottleneck in a task like this.

Looking at the "30K lines" features, the majority of the 30K lines are either auto-generated code (not by AI), or documentation. One of them is also a PoC and not merged...
by HankStallone | 2025-09-23 21:47:57+00:00
It was. At the time, they felt like they were doing the right thing -- the heroic thing, even -- in keeping dangerous disinformation away from the public view. They weren't shy about their position that censorship in that case was good and necessary. Not the ones who said it on TV, and not the ones who said it to me across the dinner table.

For Google now to pretend Biden twisted their arm is pretty rich. They'd better have a verifiable paper trail to prove that, if they expect anyone with a memory five years long to believe it.
by npteljes | 2025-09-23 21:48:06+00:00
Not good news, it's just better to know, than to not know. These sponges don't take chemicals out of our environment, they trap it and slowly release it where we would need cleanness. These chemicals would have gone away a long time ago, but the sponges kept them there.

Additionally why this is not good news, these materials were not supposed to be sponges to begin with. So, it's like discovering a bad side effect. Again, better to know than to not know, but it's not what one would call good news.
by immibis | 2025-09-23 21:48:08+00:00
The whole theoretical conception of property rights is that a property right is the right to control what happens on your property, which implies you don't have the right to control what happens on other people's property, because that right belongs to other people. You can't eat your cake and have it.

If you want property to be a neighbourhood thing then you should also be required to let the benefits of your own property accrue to your whole neighbourhood and not just yourself. So no tall fences for example. How come everyone else should have to do what you want, but you shouldn't have to do what everyone else wants?
by bradly | 2025-09-23 21:48:08+00:00
fwiw... rubygems.org was one of the only open source projects I contributed to on a regular basis (albeit once every year or two) and it was always a positive experience. Sorry its gone this way for you and others.

This all reminds me of the feelings after Merb was put down after pressure from Engine Yard so they could guard against their Ruby on Rails hosting business.