MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by reactordev | 2025-10-12 20:41:37+00:00
Agree to disagree.

I’d rather utilize requirements.txt or pyproject.toml to include a library than add an app to my app.

No. I refuse to operate like Wordpress. Glad it’s fine for you but it doesn’t with me for a variety of reasons. The biggest being is now you have multiple apps running in your app so who is to blame when it fails? You? The inner app provider? Django? Accounting? When utilizing libraries, we can utilize testing that can test our code against them either directly or using mocks. Separating ourselves from our dependencies, in case our dependencies change. Django’s model would have you add apps on apps with model definitions spread all over the code base making it near impossible to tell what your schema is…

The JBOSS App Server model is so dead. If I had it my way, Django would be deprecated in favor of FastAPI, Pydantic, and SQLAlchemy.
by restalis | 2025-10-12 20:42:03+00:00
"putting yourself and your hard work in legal risk"

Like what? I'm genuinely curious what personal risks faces anyone from contributing to ReactOS. I also am curious what kind of legal risk may threaten the work? I mean, even in the unlikely scenario that something gets proven illegal and ordered to be dismissed from the project, what would prevent any such particular expunged part to be re-implemented by some paid contractor (now under legally indisputable circumstances), thus rendering the initial effort (of legal action) moot?
by noAnswer | 2025-10-12 20:42:45+00:00
- Davinci Resolve

Has nativ support.

- Adobe suite

- Microsoft Office

https://www.winboat.app But beta.

- AutoHotkey scripts, lots of them

I'm afraid there is no easy way. https://pyautogui.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

- Issues with my laptop's Nvidia card

Get AMD.

> I don't have time for anymore (solopreneur)

Fair. Second PC to play around from time to time is probably the best in this case. But I fully understand, unless as a hobby, that infesting a lot of time makes little sense.
by cryptography | 2025-10-12 20:42:49+00:00
My partner and I are working on Supabird.io (https://supabird.io), a tool to help people grow on X in a more consistent and structured way. It analyzes viral posts within specific communities so users can learn what works and apply those insights to their own content.

My partner shares our journey on X (@hustle_fred), while I’ve been focused on building the product (yep, the techie here :). We’re excited to have onboarded 43 users in our first month, and we're looking forward to getting feedback from the HN community!
by celeritascelery | 2025-10-12 20:44:01+00:00
Agent shell is what I always wanted. I have been using many of the different Claude code integrations packages and they are really good. But there is always some friction because I need to run it in a terminal emulator. With agent shell it feels so much more integrated and natural.

I am really excited for these improvements, especially reading the env from a file.

I wish that agent-shell-sidebar had some screenshots though so I could see what it actually does.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-12 20:45:03+00:00
> not the "we ran out of money" fan, the "our product literally cannot scale and we have no idea why" fan

There may be sampling bias at play here. For every start-up struggling to scale I’ve seen twenty who architected a solution for a billion users before shipping (or getting paid for) anything. They are the ones who hit the “we ran out of money” fan.

Waiting until your code is broken is bad. I’d argue it’s worse to waste two weeks architecting a feature for 10,000 users before you even have 100.
by aetherspawn | 2025-10-12 20:45:15+00:00
I’m going to float a compromise that works pretty well and helped us get off Office with absolutely minimal effort…

Exchange Online Plan 1 (the cheapest, no Office)

Apple Mail (Active Sync), Pages, Numbers, Keynote (all free, perpetually, and mobile apps are available)

Since these are packaged as store apps, we still get basic MDM and the ability to deploy/autoconfigure/autoupdate. Active Sync allows us to get email notifications in near real-time to mobile devices (which is otherwise difficult), as well as wipe emails remotely on lost devices if we need to.

We get data sovereignty by using a Synology NAS, which has a Task to encrypt everything and upload it to Cloudflare R2 as a backup. We could really use any NAS solution, but so far Synology is hands free and can sync everyone’s emails from Exchange to the backup.

Will ditch Exchange when someone finally starts an antitrust on Microsoft/Google email hosting.
by bee_rider | 2025-10-12 20:45:20+00:00
The full quote is:

> Most of the money is being spent on incredibly expensive GPUs that have a 1-3 year lifespan due to becoming obsolete quickly and wearing out under constant, high-intensity use.

So it isn’t entirely tied to the rate of obsolescence, these things apparently get worn down from the workloads.

In terms of performance improvement, it is slightly complicated, right? It turns out that it was possible to do ML training on existing GPGPU. Then there was spurt of improvement as they go after the low-hanging fruit for that application…

If we’re talking about what we might be left with after the bubble pops, the rate of obsolescence doesn’t seem that relevant anyway. The chips as they are after the pop will be usable for the next thing or not, it is hard to guess.
by KPGv2 | 2025-10-12 20:46:06+00:00
The neural net was invented in the 1940s, and LLMs were created in the 1960s. It's 2025 and we're still using 80yo architecture. Call me cynical, but I don't understand how we're going to avoid the physical limitations of GPUs and data to train AIs on. We've pretty much exhausted the latter, and the former is going to hit sooner rather than later. We'll be left at that point with an approach that hasn't changed much since WW2, and our only solution is going to hit a physical limit law.

Even in 2002, my CS profs were talking about how GAI was a long time off bc we had been trying for decades to innovate on neural nets and LLMs and nothing better had been created despite some of the smartest people on the planet trying.
by babblingfish | 2025-10-12 20:46:11+00:00
I can see how someone who writes non-fiction idea books would think this way. The impact of an idea book is how much it permeates into culture. For example, ideas like deep work, black swan, or skin in the game. The hope is to see the ideas discussed and have them attributed to their originators.

This argument makes far less sense for memoir and fiction. The goal of these forms of writing is to induce specific emotional states in the reader. Having them regurgitated or summarized via a LLM does nothing to achieve their goal.
by dang | 2025-10-12 20:46:28+00:00
Can you please make your substantive comments without putting down others?

If you know more than someone else does, that's great! Please do share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn. But don't put down the other person. That never helps, and it tarnishes your positive contribution in a way that is bad for the community.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by didibus | 2025-10-12 20:46:37+00:00
> I have a toddler at home so my "computer time" is very scheduled and very limited

I'm slowly wondering if coding AI agents are turning into the best case scenario for workers. Maybe I'm being hopeful haha.

But having something that doesn't make you faster but just lets you be less concentrated and focused and mentally lazier while producing the same amount of work in the same time as a super dedicated and focused session would have. That's best case scenario here.
by al_borland | 2025-10-12 20:46:39+00:00
I was always confused my del.icio.us, and bookmark sharing in general. In my head bookmarks are sharing are distinct things. Bookmarks are things I want to save to visit again or a shortcut to easily visit often. Sharing is something I think someone else might find interesting, and thinks others will too, but I probably won't ever visit again.

I will bookmark the site to pay my utility bill, but it's not something I'd ever share. I might share a link to funny YouTube video, but wouldn't bookmark it.

I think social bookmarking didn't really know what it was, which is why the modern versions are more about sharing links than bookmarking. I don't post my bookmarks to Reddit, where people follow me as a person. I would post links I think are worth sharing to a topic people are interested in following.
by paufernandez | 2025-10-12 20:46:48+00:00
In my case I fully grasp what such a future could be, but I don't think we are on the path to that, I believe people are too optimistic, i.e. they just believe instead of being truly skeptical.

From where I look at it, LLMs are flawed in many ways, and people who see progress as inevitable do not have a mental model of the foundation of those systems to be able to extrapolate. Also, people do not know any other forms of AI or have though hard about this stuff on their own.

The most problematic things are:

1) LLMs are probabilistic and a continuous function, forced by gradient descent. (Just having a "temperature" seems so crazy to me.) We need to merge symbolic and discrete forms of AI. Hallucinations are the elephant in the room. They should not be put under the rug. They should just not be there in the first place! If we try to cover them with a layer of varnish, the cost will be very large in the long run (it already is: step-by-step reasoning, mixture of experts, RAG, etc. are all varnish, in my opinion)

2) Even if generalization seems ok, I think it is still really far from where it should be, since humans need exponentially less data and generalize to concepts way more abstract than AI systems. This is related to HASA and ISA relations. Current AI systems do not have any of that. Hierarchy is supposed to be the depth of the network, but it is a guess at best.

3) We are just putting layer upon layer of complexity instead of simplifying. It is the victory of the complexifiers and it is motivated by the rush to win the race. However, I am not so sure that, even if the goal seems so close now, we are going to reach it. What are we gonna do? Keep adding another order of magnitude of compute on top of the last one to move forward? That's the bubble that I see. I think that that is not solving AI at all. And I'm almost sure that a much better way of doing AI is possible, but we have fallen into a bad attractor just because Ilya was very determined.

We need new models, way simpler, symbolic and continuous at the same time (i.e. symbolic that simulate continuous), non-gradient descent learning (just store stuff like a database), HAS-A hierarchies to attend to different levels of structure, IS-A taxonomies as a way to generalize deeply, etc, etc, etc.

Even if we make progress by brute forcing it with resources, there is so much work to simplify and find new ideas that I still don't understand why people are so optimistic.
by ivan_gammel | 2025-10-12 20:46:48+00:00
Plenty of server-side FOSS is mainstream. Maintainability of the code is not the problem — there exist commercial support options. On desktop FOSS often has inferior usability for non-tech users due to different incentives for product development. If you ask anyone in the legal or accounting departments of a corporation, they will demand Microsoft (not even Google) not because it’s more expensive or has terms and conditions, but because they just can’t feel themselves productive when using alternatives. LibreOffice is not bad, but it isn’t great too.
by derelicta | 2025-10-12 20:47:39+00:00
If these people you know were publicly calling for the socialist system to be overthrown and replaced by a bourgeois liberal democracy, then I'm afraid to say I don't see anything wrong with this kind of oppression.

For example, I wish my country (Switzerland) were actively cracking down on Nazis, so oppression is okay for me. It really depends who's the target. Censorship is just a tool. One can yield it for good, or for bad purposes.
by mft_ | 2025-10-12 20:47:47+00:00
Thanks for this - de-installed an alternative and installed this.

Any thoughts of some sort of equalizer feature? I like brown noise for sleeping in noisy environments, and would love to be able to add a bit more bass to your sample. (Brown noise plus some Airplane is actually pretty good.)

---

Side thought - there needs to be a club (with a curated list?) for simple apps that work well, and commit to staying ad-free. I'd love to be able to search amongst such apps prior to auditioning options from the App Store. (I mean, it would be great to be able to filter for such apps in the App Store itself, but that's not going to happen.)
by dotnet00 | 2025-10-12 20:47:50+00:00
Reminds me of crypto/Web-3.0 hype. Lots of bluster about changing economic systems, offering people freedom and wealth, only to mostly be scams, and coming with too serious inherent drawbacks/costs to solve many of the big problems it promises to solve.

In the end leaving the world changed, but not as meaningfully or positively as promised.
by mikehall314 | 2025-10-12 20:48:24+00:00
But all it takes in that world is for a single browser vendor to decide - hey, we will even render broken XHTML, because we would rather show something than nothing - and you’re back to square one.

I know which I, as a user, would prefer. I want to use a browser which lets me see the website, not just a parse error. I don’t care if the code is correct.
by aftbit | 2025-10-12 20:49:12+00:00
As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with CAP theorem or distributed systems. It's just being used as an analogy.

> [CAP theorem] states that any distributed storage system can provide only two of these three guarantees: Consistency, Availability and Partition safety.

> In the realm of graph databases, we observe a similar “two out three” situation. You can either have scalable systems that are not fully open source or you can have open source systems designed for small graphs. Details below.

(the article follows)

> This is one solution to the CAP theorem for graphs. We can store a billion scale graph using this method in parquet files and use a free, cheap and open source solution to traverse them, perform joins without storage costs that are prohibitively high.
by Notatheist | 2025-10-12 20:49:13+00:00
>Question is, do people think a certain artist or song is important enough to pay $5/month to individually? My sense is no, but perhaps...

Abso-fucking-lutely! I pay $3.50 a month to listen to a madman with a mohawk rant about Formula 1. I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't pay their favorite artists $5 a month. On the flip side I would get to listen to three artists and every other artist would lose me as a listener. I don't feel anybody wins in that scenario.
by xenodium | 2025-10-12 20:49:36+00:00
agent-shell: A single native Emacs experience to interact with different AI agents powered by ACP (Agent Client Protocol) https://agentclientprotocol.com

So far, agent-shell can interact with Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Codex, and Goose, but can technically work with any ACP-powered agent.

ps. agent-shell needs more sponsors to become sustainable https://github.com/sponsors/xenodium
by skribanto | 2025-10-12 20:49:40+00:00
Well, it can make some chained function composition easier.

Ick1 result1 = potentiallyNull1(); Ick2 result2 = (result1 == null) ? null : potentiallyNull2(result1); Ick3 result3 = (result2 == null) ? null : potentiallyNull3(result2);

vs

Ick3 result3 = potentiallyNone1() .flatMap(potentiallyNone2) .flatMap(potentiallyNone3);

You could maybe move the null check inside the method in the former and it cleans it up a bit, but in the latter you can have methods that are explicitly marked as taking NonNull in their type signature which is nice.
by klardotsh | 2025-10-12 20:49:59+00:00
The office or otherwise mandatory frequent in person work sessions bit seems pretty at odds with the underlying idea that you’re a team focused on actually delivering and building with deep focus. What does commuting a half hour, hour, or more, each way to an office to put my headphones on and zone in, do to achieve any of that? I’m gonna be able to do that more effectively, more focusedly, and at the hours I’m most productive, remotely. The commute is strictly a distraction.
by dang | 2025-10-12 20:50:06+00:00
I appreciate your intention, of course, but please don't respond by breaking the site guidelines yourself. It only makes things worse.

Besides "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), this guideline is relevant:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

I doubt that egypturnash intended a "snarky nit". More likely this is someone who's passionate about the underlying topic (grimoires!), naturally got excited when seeing the OP, and then was disappointed when it didn't go as deep as someone with their level of knowledge would expect.

It's bad, of course, to express that by putting down the OP or their work; much better to respond by sharing some of what one knows, as I explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45561740.
by busymom0 | 2025-10-12 20:50:16+00:00
There are quite a lot of AI's inner workings articles which make it way too complicated to understand. Few months ago, I found this article which I was able to read till the end and fully understand it:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-can-ai-id-a-cat-an-illust...

I think it's perfect example of making complex things easier to understand.
by weinzierl | 2025-10-12 20:50:39+00:00
"Almost no meetings: “deep focus” - building instead of talking about building"

I used to work in an environment with often 8 hours of meetings straight. People had their headsets on while being in meetings and were simultaneously programming and when they heard their name mentioned they tried to say something smart. It was a terribly inefficient way to work.

Then I switched to an environment where we took "Almost no meetings" seriously and it was a tremendous boost. After a year or so I realized that we left a lot of potential efficiency untapped because of lack of communication or miss-communication.

Now I think there must be a middle ground - an optimum of communication for an optimum of efficiency. Teams need to be actively steered to that, just hiring good communicators and hoping for the best is probably not going to work. You need meetings. At least some. And some seemingly inefficient meetings will prevent inefficiency elsewhere.

Everything I wrote above was about highly distributed teams working remotely. The Tiny Teams Playbook has also

"In Person: either have an office, or VERY frequent AirBnB hack weeks"

in it, which changes things quite a bit.
by rz2k | 2025-10-12 20:50:50+00:00
Local/open-weight models are already incredibly competent. Right now a Mac Studio with 256GB can be found for less than $5000, and an equivalent workstation will likely be 50% cheaper in a year. If anything that price is higher because of the boom, rather than subsidized by a potential bubble. It can run a 8bit quant of GPT-OSS 120B, or 4bit quant of GLM-4.6 using only an extra 100-200W. That energy use comes out to about 100 Joules or 1/4 Wh per query and response, and is already competitive with the power efficiency of even Google's offerings.

I think that people doing work in many professions with these offline tools alone could more than double their productivity compared to their productivity two years ago. Furthermore if the usage was shared in order to lower idle time, such as 20 machines for 100 workers, the initial capital outlay is even lower.

Perhaps investors will not see the returns they expect, but it is difficult to image how even the current state of AI doesn't vastly change the economy. There could be significant business failures among cloud providers and attempts to rapidly increase the cost of admission to closed models, but there's essentially no possibility of productivity regressing to a pre-AI levels.
by jonathanstrange | 2025-10-12 20:51:02+00:00
No hardware failure is considered? No cosmic rays flipping bits? No soft or hard real-time guarantees are discussed? What about indeterminate operations that can fail such as requesting memory from some operating system dynamically?

I'm asking because I thought high integrity systems are generally evaluated and certified as a combination of hardware and software. Considering software alone seems pretty useless.
by bobthepanda | 2025-10-12 20:51:58+00:00
We also have hit ceilings of performance demand. As an example, 8K TVs never really got off the ground because your average consumer could give a hoot. Vision Pro is a flop because AR/VR are super niche. Crypto is more gambling than asset class. Etc.

What is interesting is that it seems like the ever larger sums of money sloshing around are resulting in bigger, faster hype cycles. We are already seeing some companies face issues after blowback from adopting AI too fast.
by d3Xt3r | 2025-10-12 20:52:27+00:00
In addition to Photon, I would say QNX itself (the desktop OS). I ran QNX 6 Neutrino on my PIII 450 back in the day, and the experience was so much more better than every other mainstream OS on the market. The thing that blew me away was how responsive the desktop was while multitasking, something Linux struggled with even decades later.

Similarly, I'm also gutted that the QNX 1.44MB demo floppy didn't survive past the floppy era - they had some really good tech there. Imagine if they pitched it as a rescue/recovery OS for PCs, you could've run it entirely from the UEFI. Or say as an OS for smart TVs and other consumer smart devices.
by siebenmann | 2025-10-12 20:52:35+00:00
I've made a PDF of one of my bike club cue sheets from 2014 and put it at https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~cks/tbn/tbn-gatineau-gallop-2014... ; the GPS route that is more or less equivalent to it is https://ridewithgps.com/routes/28370340 (there may be minor differences because the route is more modern than the cue sheet, but it will give you orientation). The cue sheet is written for a group ride (where the group will stay together) and for people familiar with Toronto, so it might be challenging to follow solo unless you were already somewhat familiar with the ride (as the ride leader is expected to be).

The cue sheet is structured the way it is because it's expected it will be folded in half horizontally to fit in a map/cue sheet holder, and perhaps vertically as well (if people have a small holder; you fold vertically first, initially hiding the entire right column since you only need it after lunch, then horizontally). Cue sheet holders typically let you flip them up to see the back, so the exact division of a horizontal fold doesn't have to be perfect. Each numbered section covers a (relatively) distinct section of the ride to make it easier to keep track of where you are in the cue sheet overall.

Cue sheets for different circumstances need different sorts of structure. For example, for some cue sheets it would be quite important to include the distance (cumulative and/or from the previous cue). In others, such as this one, individually numbered cues and distances to them are mostly distractions.

(I'm the author of the linked-to blog entry, and as you can tell I have Opinions on cue sheet design.)
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-10-12 20:52:43+00:00
Thanks so much for linking this, I think it's a great study.

And I agree, I don't think it would be a panacea. But I think it would be a lot fairer, and would help a large selection of artists in that middle tier. For the most obscure artists, while the study says it has a "low impact" on them, they actually had the highest percentage increase, but since their royalties are already so low the euro amount increase was in the single digit euros. And again, that seems fair to me - if hardly anyone is listening to you, you're not going to be getting a big payout.