MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jezek2 | 2025-10-10 04:52:26+00:00
This has been tried, even in the browser. It just leads to buttons that do nothing when clicked, scrolling to unpopulated areas, infinite loading animations and other such artifacts.

It does not help, you have smooth animations but you feel you're disconnected from the program and trust it less. The UI code just needs to not take much time and offload background stuff to another thread, but not the UI logic itself. It also naturally synchronizes events.

And sometimes it's better to briefly block UI thread as the alternatives lead to worse user experience.
by adzm | 2025-10-10 04:52:39+00:00
Obviously you want detailed documentation too, and examples are great for quickly grasping bigger concepts and how to integrate into other systems. In my experience the best solution are both, where examples all have hyperlinks to the actual documentation for everything involved in the example. React is a good example in my opinion; there is detailed documentation of the api, overviews of the concepts, as well as examples that are included where necessary and as part of a walkthrough.

Even better are the challenges at the end of their examples which force you to rethink what you just read.
by kixpanganiban | 2025-10-10 04:53:53+00:00
> The article is confusing the architectural layers of AI coding agents. It's easy to add "cut/copy/paste" tools to the AI system if that shows improvement. This has nothing to do with LLM, it's in the layer on top.

I think we can't trivialize adding good cut/copy/paste tools though. It's not like we can just slap those tools on the topmost layer (ex, on Claude Code, Codex, or Roo) and it'll just work.

I think that a lot of reinforcement learning that LLM providers do on their coding models barely (if at all) steer towards that kind of tool use, so even if we implemented those tools on top of coding LLMs they probably would just splash and do nothing.

Adding cut/copy/paste probably requires a ton of very specific (and/or specialized) fine tuning with not a ton of data to train on -- think recordings of how humans use IDEs, keystrokes, commands issued, etc etc.

I'm guessing Cursor's Autocomplete model is the closest thing that can do something like this if they chose to, based on how they're training it.
by nialse | 2025-10-10 04:54:35+00:00
Common misunderstandings are that there was no control over the internet and that anonymity was for protecting freedom of expression of the individuals.

The difference is that what once was covert in the West is now out in the open. Anonymity enabled the troll culture, famously exploited by any and all bad faith actors in their favor. Control in terms of surveillance on metadata level is just a manner of having enough endpoints at your disposal for a nation state actor.

It was a nice illusion and the wake up is kind of harsh.
by somenameforme | 2025-10-10 04:55:17+00:00
You're conflating public vs private. PRISM is private data collection and probably unconstitutional/illegal owing to the 4th amendment. So any information provided by PRISM is not directly used. Instead there is parallel construction [1] - the NSA (or whatever other agency they provide intel to) creates a pretext for how they obtained the information/evidence that sidesteps the real source. For instance if they pick up information on a car carrying drugs, that car might be pulled over for 'driving recklessly' and it's then searched because of 'suspicious behavior.' The real source of the reason makes no appearance in court.

The reason for this charade is because everytime somebody tries to sue the NSA over illegal data collection, the case gets tossed for lack of standing. You need to prove both that you were illegally spied on and negatively affected by such. If you can't prove that, then you have no standing to sue. And anytime people try to gather evidence of said collection in e.g. discovery, the government simply claims national security - and the case ends up tossed.

The public cases are efforts to try to streamline the process where the government could legally directly utilize such things. So you have this sort of charade where Apple is giving the government everything it wants in private, but then genuinely fighting them publicly. Both sides get more or less what they want out of the deal. Apple gets to pretend to be a protector of privacy, and the government gets unfettered access to whatever they want.

The Intercept has run a bunch of articles on this topic, alongside direct evidence of such. Here's one. [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

[2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/11/30/nsa-surveillance-fisa-se...
by moron4hire | 2025-10-10 04:55:49+00:00
To take this a step further.

They aren't even numbers. They're voltage-high and voltage-low signals.

Numbers don't even exist! You'll never find a 2 in nature. You'll find two things, but you'll never find the 2 itself.

And all 2s are the same 2. But every voltage signal representing a 2 is a completely different voltage signal. Sometimes they aren't even voltage signals! Sometimes they're magnetic flux signals! Sometimes they're electrical field signals! Sometimes they're photons modulated down a wire made of glass!

But the 2 they represent? Not even that is 2. It's 10!
by Msurrow | 2025-10-10 04:56:29+00:00
No browser or browser extension that I know of, but it may exist.

I always circumvent it by just never clicking links sent to me (mail, sms, WhatsApp, etc). If I get a mail from, for example, Netflix that says there is a problem with my billing or whatever. I open a browser myself, go to Netflix’s site and login. If there really is a billing issue then I can see it after logging in. The links are actually never needed if you think about it.

Other than that use MFA (multi factor) everywhere you can. It doesn’t defeat phishing attack completely, but it is good protection. (Hackers can buy tools that provides them with a UI to build and execute phishing campaigns, even ones that include handling MFA)
by monster_truck | 2025-10-10 04:56:48+00:00
I've had cluster headaches my whole life. As a kid I would describe them as "a 40 foot tall giant hammering an ice pick through my skull into my eyeball". Tried a lot for a long time, nothing worked. Sometimes standing in the hottest shower possible until I inexplicably throw up and then feel perfectly fine works, sometimes it doesn't.

There's really no understating the pain, it is not "2 dimensional", which is what I would use to describe every other form of pain I have experienced. It has a shape with immense depth and detail.

Then I got a pretty severe concussion and I mentioned to my doctor at one of the checkups months afterwards that I haven't had any since, they casually threw out "it's entirely possible you're still experiencing them and you just can't feel them now". Scared the hell out of me, but what're you gonna do? They did eventually come back. If we figure it out in my lifetime I'll be damn impressed.

All that said, I wouldn't want to turn pain off. It's important to learn to live with and through it, whatever the source might be, if it cannot be fixed.
by furyofantares | 2025-10-10 04:57:26+00:00
> Are people supposed to be obligated to post such a report nowadays?

No, typically when I ask questions it's optional.

> I enjoyed the article and found it really interesting, but seeing these types of comments always kind of puts a damper on it afterwards.

That is why I waited half a day, and until after there were lots of comments praising the article. Still, I'm sorry if it put a damper on it for you.

Also the whole reason I asked about the source is because I think the article has a lot of merit and so I am curious if it's because the author put a lot of work in (LLM-assisted or not.) Usually when I get that feeling it's followed by a realization I'm wasting my time on something the author didn't even read closely.

But I didn't get that this time, and I'd love more examples of LLMs being used (with effort, presumably) to produce something the author could take pride in.
by jeffparsons | 2025-10-10 04:57:40+00:00
Good question. I'm not primarily blaming Discord or the other company for this (even though they both obviously share some responsibility, too) — I'm blaming government/legislators. I'm arguing that the government agencies/departments that own the relevant forms of ID should have been required to develop the capability to facilitate this sort of secure ID verification _years_ ago. Instead policy makers ignored reality and rushed through this legislative hatchet job... and here we are yet again. As anybody who's been awake during the last few decades could have predicted.

Tangent: I've regularly been required to provide copies of my ID to all kinds of businesses simply to function in society — i.e. in practice there is no realistic option to opt out. Want to rent a house? X points of ID. Want a phone? X points of ID. Pretty much every real estate agency in town has copies of at least my driver licence. And they in turn share my details with tenant database companies, credit reporting agencies and so on. Do you think many of these businesses have good data handling practices? Of course they don't. And so all my details are available for purchase in bulk data sets on the dark web, and get refreshed by new data breaches every few years. And yet government still treats it as somehow unexpected each time this happens, or wags its finger and bemoans those naughty criminals, instead of developing any kind of policy that would start to address the underlying issue... which is that our personal details are spread so far and wide in the first place.
by davidkunz | 2025-10-10 04:59:58+00:00
I have huge respect for Mitchell, it's impressive what he achieved.

I agree with all the points of this article and would like to add one: Have a quick feedback loop. For me, it's really motivating to be able to make a change and quickly see the results. Many problems just vanish or become tangible to solve when you playfully modify your source code and observe the effect.
by maxaw | 2025-10-10 05:00:02+00:00
Techie people, myself included seem chronically unable to understand why people prefer inefficient, higher level tools over the efficient low level ones.

Low level tools require an investment of time and brainpower to configure. Consider the time it takes to set up a dishwasher- research, buying, installing, reading the manual. Vs telling your humanoid robot “go wash the dishes”. People will pay a lot more and put up with a lot worse results in exchange for that kind of simplicity.

In a better world we would all be craftspeople and invest time into more efficient things but that ain’t human nature
by k310 | 2025-10-10 05:00:16+00:00
For kids 2-10, look at gcompris [0]

An educator gives suggestions for use. [1]

GCompris is a high quality educational software suite, including a large number of activities for children aged 2 to 10.

Some of the activities are game orientated, but nonetheless still educational.

Here is the list of activity categories with some examples:

• computer discovery: keyboard, mouse, touchscreen ...

• reading: letters, words, reading practice, typing text ...

• arithmetic: numbers, operations, table memory, enumeration, double entry table ...

• science: the canal lock, the water cycle, renewable energy ...

• geography: countries, regions, culture ...

• games: chess, memory, align 4, hangman, tic-tac-toe ...

• other: colors, shapes, Braille, learn to tell time ...

Currently GCompris offers more than 100 activities, and more are being developed. GCompris is free software, it means that you can adapt it to your own needs, improve it, and most importantly share it with children everywhere.

The GCompris project is hosted and developed by the KDE community.

This software is a GNU Package and is released under the GNU Affero General Public License.

[0] https://gcompris.net/index-en.html

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/donez-tech_teachers-want-to-s...
by wbolt | 2025-10-10 05:00:55+00:00
More than 300 comments here and still no convincing answer. Why the community wastes time on trying to make CPython faster when there is pypy which is already much faster? I understand pypy lacks libraries and feature parity with up to date CPython. But… can’t everyone refocus the efforts and just move to pypy to add all the missing bits and then just continue with pypy as the “official python”? Are there any serious technical reasons not to do it?
by CJefferson | 2025-10-10 05:01:21+00:00
I don't agree, but I agree it's an interesting discussion to have.

When is the set of all possible subsets of natural numbers worth considering more than the set of all sets which don't contain themselves (which gets us Russell's paradox of course), once we start building infinite sets non-constructively?

The naturals to me are a clearly separate category, as I can easily write down an algorithm which will make any natural number given enough time. But then, I'm a constructionist at heart, so I would like that.
by aidenn0 | 2025-10-10 05:01:26+00:00
This is my first encounter with Scribe.js; since I have many book scans I always try OCRing them when I see this. Compared to Tesseract (which is the best I have so far), it gets the words right slightly more, but the paragraph segmentation is many times worse. On a book where every paragraph is indented, it reliably decides two consecutive one-line paragraphs are the same paragraph, which is understandable, but a downgrade from Tesseract which gets the paragraph segmentation as correct as possible (It doesn't handle paragraphs that spanpage-breaks, since I'm feeding it one page at a time)
by frenchtoast8 | 2025-10-10 05:01:31+00:00
This makes Ruby Central look even worse. TFA is only concerned with the root user, and the timeline ends at September 30, but Arko was able to confirm as late as October 5 that he had access to _other_ accounts with production access. Ruby Central doesn't seem interested in the article to mention that even after being notified about unauthorized access they still hadn't rotated all relevant credentials almost a week later.
by pisikesipelgas | 2025-10-10 05:01:59+00:00
Hi, How do You guys resolve the application database DDL issue when multimaster is in use? One node gets updated, DDL is will be replicated (?) to second node, which is used by not-jet-updated application which is not compatible with updated database structure. This problem has bugged me for a while. And second and similar issue with most replication setups is let's take for postgis for example. Again in one node this extension gets updated. Now what? Data will be replicated to node which is not jet updated and cause whole system to be not functional.
Ultrameta Modelling
by mmllm | 2025-10-10 05:02:48+00:00
Hi HN. There are highly specialized languages models abounding. Two that have been personally interesting are: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.13721 And Today, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1o27xsj/introducing_playable1gguf_by_far_the_worlds_best/

The obvious extension of generating models with large corpi, eventually, is generation of models of models. The LMM, the large model model, is trained on models, such as the content of hugging face. Right? All the fine tuners and abliterators, and every variation of a model can be used as training data for eventual large model models.
by zahma | 2025-10-10 05:03:57+00:00
At least with medicine there are ethics and operating principles and very strict protocols. The first among them is ‘do no harm.’

It’s not reassuring to me that these companies, bursting at the seams with so much cash that they’re actually are having national economic impact, are flying blind and there’s no institution to help correct course and prevent this hurdling mass from crashing into society and setting it ablaze.
by SilverElfin | 2025-10-10 05:04:48+00:00
This is Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram. And he’s totally correct. The Internet was much better before the 2000s and the social media era. And when the people who remember it aren’t around, those remaining won’t have any idea that they’re missing something.

He’s also totally correct in calling out the obvious lunge towards authoritarianism from European democracies - this must be stopped immediately:

> Once-free countries are introducing dystopian measures such as digital IDs (UK), online age checks (Australia), and mass scanning of private messages (EU).

> Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy.
by brewdad | 2025-10-10 05:04:55+00:00
My suburb has solid light rail to the city but a poor bus system to complement it. My closest bus doesn't run at all on weekends. There is a huge park and ride lot but, since I'm already in my car driving towards my destination, it always ends up being a question of whether I want to deal with a rail ride that might be equivalent to driving inbound but will be at least 30 minutes longer on the return. The deciding factor tends to come down to parking costs in the city or whether I plan to drink and need the long return ride to sober up.
by andsoitis | 2025-10-10 05:06:46+00:00
Top response:

I like how after gold goes on a once in a 100 year rally everyone thinks it is the best investment ever. I can cherry pick dates too! gold vs S&P from 2012-2023. Also your chart is a 1 time investment in either gold or US stocks. What does it look like if instead someone is investing money each year? Stocks are slightly ahead even under your period of 2000-2025 stocks 22% cagr and gold
by adtac | 2025-10-10 05:06:53+00:00
> or endeavor to

you picked the worst example company to complain about how they're are not trying lol. just in 2025 from anthropic:

Circuit Tracing: Revealing Computational Graphs in Language Models https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/met...

On the Biology of a Large Language Model https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

Progress on Attention https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attention-update/index...

A Toy Model of Interference Weights https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/interference-weights/i...

Open-sourcing circuit tracing tools https://www.anthropic.com/research/open-source-circuit-traci...
by selcuka | 2025-10-10 05:11:14+00:00
> can’t everyone refocus the efforts

You have answered your own question.

Seriously, though. PyPy is 2-3 versions behind CPython (3.11 vs 3.14) and it's not even 100% compatible with 3.11. Libraries such as psycopg and lxml are not fully supported. It's a hard sell.
by devjab | 2025-10-10 05:12:04+00:00
To limit the amount of languages we support I recently rewrote one of our backend services from Go (with SQLC) to Python. I hadn't worked with Python "web" for a while and started with Litestar and also their Advanced-Alchemy. Part of the reason was that their DTO's and dataclasses seemed like a good way to skip Pydantic. Anyway, once models became complext it wasn't easy to skip Pydantic and it also wasn't easy to deal with Advanced Alchemy. One afternoon I got so annoyed with it I rewrote everything with Django Ninja. It took me 4-5 hours that evening to recreate all the previous weeks stuff with Django because of how good the batteries included are.

I'm not sure I'd ever use any other web framework than Django going forward, and I'm not using half of it (including the admin). I think Litestar is great by the way, Django is just so easy to produce with.
by CableNinja | 2025-10-10 05:13:22+00:00
I would slightly sort of disagree that code is just math when you really boil it down, however, if you take a simple task, say, printing hello world to the output, you could actually break that down into a mathematical process. You can mathematically say at time T value of O will be the value of index N of input X, so over a period of time you eventually get "hello world" as the final output

Howeveeerrr.. its not quite math when you break down to the electronics level, unless you go really wild (wild meaning physics math). take a breakdown of python to assembly to binary that flips the transistors doing the thing. You can mathematically define that each transistor will be Y when that value of O is X(N); btw sorry i can't think of a better way to define such a thing from mobile here. And go further by defining voltages to be applied, when and where, all mathematically.

In reality its done in sections. At the electronic level math defines your frequency, voltage levels, timing, etc; at the assembly level, math defines what comparisons of values to be made or what address to shift a value to and how to determine your output; lastly your interpreter determines what assembly to use based on the operations you give it, and based on those assembly operations, ex an "if A == B then C" statement in code is actually a binary comparator that checks if the value at address A is the same as the value at address B.

You can get through a whole stack with math, but much of it has been abstracted away into easy building blocks that don't require solving a huge math equation in order to actually display something.

You can even find mathematical data among datasheets for electronic components. They say (for example) over period T you cant exceed V volts or W watts, or to trigger a high value you need voltage V for period T but it cannot exceed current I. You can define all of your components and operations as an equation, but i dont think its really done anymore as a practice, the complexity level of doing so (as someone not building a cpu or any ic) isnt useful unless youre working on a physics paper or quantum computing, etc etc
by abricot | 2025-10-10 05:13:30+00:00
One thing that isn’t mentioned in the article is that driver’s education in US is a fucking sad joke, and the driving tests even more so.

Many mention rules about yielding, and having to stop when turning right on red: most of the drivers only know a fraction of the rules. They never learned most of them.

I’m not sure about this, but my understanding is that some states don’t even require a license if you are older.
by lelandbatey | 2025-10-10 05:13:53+00:00
Yes, but there's also a limit. For the dishwashing, consider that you can already exchange money for a maximally efficient, maximally flexible solution: you can hire someone to do your dishes. How much would you pay for a live in, automata like servant who washes all your dishes for you? What about if they could do many other things? $1k? $5k? $100k? What about the maintenance? What're the ongoing costs like?

Sure, if a dishwasher is $1k and the robot has a high success (not many broken dishes) rate AND can do other things AND is priced like a nice used car (up to $35k) then yeah, maybe? But there's so much of "it depends" in there that it's hard to say for sure. In curious what price/generality/reliability you have in mind when you say "many people would prefer..."
by phs318u | 2025-10-10 05:15:29+00:00
If only those so offended by this and other (comparatively isolated) incidents, don't apply the same level of distrust of those that behave unethically and corruptly on an almost daily basis i.e. oligarchs and politicians. It's like they see a pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is grey ("boo!") and the pot is vantablack ("I see nothing wrong here").