MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by MrJohz | 2025-10-09 12:00:39+00:00
To egotistically comment on my own comment (unfortunately I can't edit any more):

This is all specific to frontend stuff, i.e. how do you build an application that mostly lives on the client. Generally, the answer to that seems to be signals* and your choice of templating system — unless you're using React, then the answer is pure render functions and additional mechanisms to attach state to that.

Where there's more exploration right now is how you build an application that spans multiple computers. This is generally hard — I don't think anyone has demonstrated an obvious way of doing this yet. In the old days, we had fully client-side applications, but syncing files was always done manually. Then we had applications that lived on external servers, but this meant that you needed a network round-trip to do anything meaningful. Then we moved the rendering back to the client which meant that the client could make some of its own decisions, and reduced the number of round trips needed, but this bloats the client, and makes it useless if the network goes down.

The challenge right now, then, is trying to figure out how to share code between client and server in such a way that

(a) the client doesn't have to do more than it needs to do (no need to contain the logic for rendering an entire application just to handle some fancy tabs). (b) the client can still do lots of things that are useful (optimistic updates, frontend validation, etc (c) both client and server can be modelled as a single application as opposed to two different ones, potentially with different tooling, languages, and teams (d) the volatility of the network is always accounted for and does not break the application

This is where most of the innovation in frontend frameworks is going towards. React has their RSCs (React Server Components, components that are written using React but render only on the server), and other frameworks are developing their own approaches. You also see it more widely with the growth of local-first software, which approaches the problem from a different angle (can we get rid of the server altogether?) but is essentially trying to solve the same core issues.

And importantly here, I don't think anyone has solved these issues yet, even in older models of software. The reason this development is ongoing has nothing to do with the web platform (which is an incredible resource in many ways: a sandboxed mini-OS with incredibly powerful primitives), it's because it's a very old problem and we still need to figure out what to do about it.

* Or some other reactivity primitive or eventing system, but mostly signals.
by user34283 | 2025-10-09 12:00:53+00:00
I am making a guess based on the opinions presented.

The point here being that it is hardly relevant how a subreddit specifically and explicitely for conservatives is moderated, when we are talking how mainstream subreddits are censoring conservative opinions.

Many grievances appear to be liberals concerning themselves with how /r/conservative is moderated, most likely after being banned for astroturfing there.
by Bender | 2025-10-09 12:01:13+00:00
The second part I was only half kidding. There could be decent money in making believable propaganda videos. Some are already doing it as a jab to their opponents. My ulterior motive would be to desensitize the general public to all video content and make them wary of believing anything they see. adding a layer of insulation from the media and governments to all people instead of just techies.

Elderly that are not using the latest tech would probably enjoy some reviving old memories and see what could have been. On the other hand it may cause them to become depressed. I guess one would have to try it out with a handful of people and study the outcome. It probably would not be a big money maker since most elderly in care facilities are on fixed incomes but it would be good practice. If this was tried I would be curious to see the outcome regarding what percentage appreciated this vs. were depressed by what could have been vs. where they ended up in life.
by le-mark | 2025-10-09 12:01:36+00:00
> There may be an attempt to coerce these platforms to start moderating in a way that's more favourable to Trump.

That’s the real comedy about this; when we like it censorship is good, when we don’t like it (Covid shutdown, anti vax, Jan 6th) censorship is bad. The double standard is shocking, yet completely normalized.

Besides any attempt to end violent rhetoric has to start with POTUS himself, theater exactly what it is.
by joaoqalves | 2025-10-09 12:01:41+00:00
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Indeed, some, if not most, are using LLMs in their daily activities. They have access to GitHub copilot, and there were pilots with other tools like Claude Code, recently.

Generally speaking, these folks are empowered to make their lives better and more productive through LLMs. There are a few things to consider, though:

1. It’s not the same a brand new codebase vs a big, existing one. Context management helps, but you also need to invest a lot on it. Especially legacy projects. Bear in mind that producing code is part of the job of a Software Engineer but not the biggest chunk, especially in legacy apps. Observability, setting up good cloud infrastructure, etc is still there. I think there’s also room to improve it with LLMs but we must also acknowledge we’re in the early days, although it does not seem so.

2. When you work for a bigCo, there are tempos. Approvals, budget, licenses… All of this makes the adoption of these tools a bit slower than wanted.

3. Finally, there’s a cultural change. A lot of great SWE, even on HN, despise the idea of having someone writing code for them. “It’s bad code”, etc. We need, as an industry, to make sure we get the most out of the available tools, and be proficient with them. So, this is a more cultural/people’s problems. And these are harder than vibe coding.
by mixedbit | 2025-10-09 12:01:43+00:00
Here is money printing scheme that looks to be at work:

Initial situation:

* Big corp M has X$ in cash where X is huge

Big Corp M invest X$ in AI startup O, with a provision that O needs to use most of the money to buy cloud infrastructure from M to power AI models.

End situation:

* Big corp M has X$ wort of shares in O, the value of which will rapidly grow

* Big corp M cloud division has ~X$ in extra revenue

The deal automatically turns X$ into ~2X$ in books. Rinse and repeat with next round deals and next AI startups. The big corps are reporting increased cloud divisions revenue from AI spent, but it is their own investment money flowing back to cloud divisions.
by porridgeraisin | 2025-10-09 12:01:56+00:00
> [ultra] processed

This whole terminology just brings about brain damaged discourse as seen in this same thread. Just you wait for someone to say "itS jUsT LiKE caLLiNg wAtER dIHydrOgEN mONoXide".

I much prefer the following:

1. Food providers basically do all this crap to reduce costs. That's it that's the incentive. For _various_ reasons, a good, local food supply chain has become expensive. If we go debugging the causes of that we will find that the solution is outside the purview of a nutrition department. Let's not do that.

2. Instead, we try to limit menus that tend towards being cheap (like school food in this context) to contain dishes that are cheap by default. Food that's cheap by default, pre-cost-optimisation, is most often simple food. Small number of ingredients, very simple cooking process, minimal frying, etc,. Simple enough that they can just make it right there from start to finish, or somewhere nearby, for low cost, with minimal supply volatility.

Using my hollywood-inspired knowledge of the american school menu, but practical experience with handling food at schools in India, I'd suggest s/cereal/oats+fruits, s/mac-n-cheese/simpler pasta dish-say pesto or shredded chicken pasta, s/choco milk/just milk, s/chicken nuggets/pulled chicken sandwich with simple veggies. Can add some stew/soup in there as well. Beans too if needed. All with simple spice combinations.

These can be easily made fresh on-site or at a satellite kitchen serving 10-15 schools. Beyond 30-40 is when even this gets dicey.

Eggs I suppose schools won't be (probably aren't right now) allowed to break it and cook it on-site due to salmonella risk, which is why they all use pasteurised pre-made crap. So I've omitted it. It's also weird for lunch, I assume. I've left out cheese too due to the tendency for folks to shift to imitation cheese, as it's most common cheese even in usual grocery shops. Oil is also minimal - you basically are only using a drizzle of it for trapping flavour above. No frying is done. Bread is pretty much the only processed product left there, you can probably mandate whole wheat % for those, but still, overall it will be a big improvement.

Instead of playing a cat and mouse game where you make regulations, and you get back the same effect just through a route skirting those regulations, a practical solution similar to the one above, which removes the incentives to skirt, might be in order.

That said, I don't think school food has much to do with child obesity crises. What they eat outside school far outweighs school food in quantity. It's an easy political win though since it's the only part of kids diet that govt controls, which is why they harp on about it.
by JohnMakin | 2025-10-09 12:02:52+00:00
You can feel all you want - there is no evidence this is happening.It would be massive news in the professional community. You’d need a comprehensive GTO strategy which doesn’t really exist, especially in multiway pots. Best we have right now are GTO (game theory optimal) solvers which need tons of assumptions plugged into them and require enormous amounts of memory and time to spit out results, and we still don’t really understand a lot about the underlying theory.

It doesn’t matter how many hands you “train” something on. Poker is a game of incomplete information and many assumptions must be made about an opponent’s range, bluff frequency, etc. One small tweak in assumptions and the entire GTO output changes with solvers. It’s very difficult to get these assumptions right. As I said it’s an unsolved game. Even the GTO solvers only work in 1 on 1 pots (assuming the assumptions you’re working with are close).

Respectfully, although you claim to be a former online professional (I have played for 20 years, at times professionally) - you don’t seem to understand what you are talking about.
by tuesdaynight | 2025-10-09 12:03:15+00:00
It's crazy for me that it's not a well-known thing that Russia, Iran, China, North Korea and other countries are fueling the polarization of western politics using bots on EVERY RELEVANT social media. The right wing bots are kind of known, but a lot of people aren't aware of other things (e.g., TENET Media [1]), or that they are fueling left wing circles as well [2].

People believe that these countries would love to do that, but for some reason, they think they are not doing as much as possible.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19802

[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/25/scottish-ind...
by hirako2000 | 2025-10-09 12:03:50+00:00
n8n in my experience using it for 2 years now, and compared to similar solutions as there are many doing quite the same thing: it is just a very good product. It's stable. It has a gazillion integrations out of the box and is architectured as a module system so it's easy to create your own. It is very community centric, with community workflows and also integration modules people kindly publish on GitHub.

Oh, it's open (core) source. And while certain (just a couple of) enterprise features should have been made open to qualify as being called open source, it's very close to that. Most powerful features are open, ready to self host, modify and make your own.

Does it end up driving webs of python partials forming apps. Absolutely. Does it scale ? It does. Do complex flow remain maintainable? As a coder I prefer to maintain a repo of code than visual elements made of snippets. But, the critical advantage is productivity, for simple flows the community intelligence solves everything so you can get an operational set of valuable solutions within hours, even minutes once proficient with the interface. Another factor is, you can deploy pilot flow acting as applications, test them with production data, and make that live with the press of a button once pilot testing is done. With a code project you would need a robust and well polished cicd pipeline to get that.

The limit or cons to me is a logic and compute heavy solution just isn't a fit to run on an n8n platform, scaling n8n just isn't as intuitive as scaling pure application component that do one thing.

An example you may have a cpu heavy node, and a memory heavy node. It makes scaling the whole instance very inefficient. Scaling memory of a dedicated memory intensive application and scaling compute for the compute intensive component simply is far more optimal.

If resource cost is not significant relative to the value of your flows then just scale a self hosted n8n and you only need to digest having to maintain, following your analogy, a "nest of pythons".

Note: n8n sadly only supports python or JavaScript for custom code nodes, would have been nicer had they built a polyglot runtime instead. That's however more than what every other flow platforms let users do.
by jononor | 2025-10-09 12:04:00+00:00
Why would it devalue the platform? The more time people spend watching, the more attention that can be monetized. More content, or higher quality content, or content produced more cheap does not detract deon that? The algorithms will pick winners anyway, and can shape things into the familiar power law of popularity, if that is the desired mode. People parasocial needs can be exploited by human creators to differentiate from AI generated content. Modern social media is like a casino, the house always wins.
by tossandthrow | 2025-10-09 12:04:30+00:00
I regularly check in on using LLMs. But a key criteria for me is that an LLM needs to objectively make me more efficient, not subjectively.

Often I find myself cursing at the LLM for not understanding what I mean - which is expensive in lost time / cost of tokens.

It is easy to say: Then just don't use LLMs. But in reality, it is not too easy to break out of these loops of explaining, and it is extremely hard to assess when not to trust that the LLM will not be able to finish the task.

I also find that LLMs consistently don't follow guidelines. Eg. to never use coercions in TypeScript (It always gets in a rogue `as` somewhere) - to which I can not trust the output and needs to be extra vigilant reviewing.

I use LLMs for what they are good at. Sketching up a page in React/Tailwind, sketching up a small test suite - everything that can be deemed a translation task.

I don't use LLMs for tasks that are reasoning heavy: Data modelling, architecture, large complex refactors - things that require deep domain knowledge and reasoning.
by cryptonym | 2025-10-09 12:04:35+00:00
Soon current version of the toy will be deemed unsafe and start catching fire. You'll have to get a new version of the toy, still available easily but it'll only run on crazy expensive batteries you can get from Vicky. Or you could try to build your own batteries but specifications for those are hazardous, undocumented and changes over time.

Also, for the new version of the toy you'll have to learn to play a new game as the old way to play with it'll become half-working.

At least that's what parents are afraid of.
by tobr | 2025-10-09 12:04:36+00:00
No, and not before that either. It’s a bizarre thing to say, honestly. React is used near universally, despite there being alternatives that are better in almost every way. That is the opposite of being under appreciated. Hype about a new technology, deserved or not, doesn’t mean that everyone is throwing their old code away, especially not their jobby job code.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-09 12:04:40+00:00
> Sure, you can overengineer your prompt to try get them to ask more questions (Roo for example, does a decent job at this) -- but it's very likely still won't.

Not in my experience. And it's not "overengineering" your prompt, it's just writing your prompt.

For anything serious, I always end every relevant request with an instruction to repeat back to me the full design of my instructions or ask me necessary clarifying questions first if I've left anything unclear, before writing any code. It always does.

And I don't mind having to write that, because sometimes I don't want that. I just want to ask it for a quick script and assume it can fill in the gaps because that's faster.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-10-09 12:04:40+00:00
Most office workers are not in software so most work machines are office machines. Having baseline Windows further encumbered by often-misguided IT approaches.

Every one of these needs more intense tweaking before it will run as well as the same offices 20 years ago.

Too bad most users are locked out and IT may not know how to do it or may not be motivated anyway.

It may even be at the point where less tweaking may now be needed for Linux to become a higher-performance office machine than Windows/Office was 20 years ago. With less undocumented effort than it would take to get the same performance from the latest Windows. But who's going to do it?

All other things are not being equal though, 20 years ago PC's were lower-performing hardware in a number of ways, so that probably should be brought under consideration.

But it just seems so unfair then.
by hannofcart | 2025-10-09 12:04:46+00:00
PM (at the next sprint meeting): "So, Matt, for your next story here's this 48000 line code base that I vibe coded for the new vendor interop feature you said would be difficult to implement correctly.

Of course this is a standalone page written in some language that I forget. I think Cursor mentioned some animal name... anyway. Can you please put this into our product please?"
by Hobadee | 2025-10-09 12:05:43+00:00
I call this the "marketing website problem".

Unfortunately many companies have realized that engineers don't make purchasing decisions. (Mearly suggestions) Rather, C-Suite, who knows nothing about the technical side of things, and everything about the buzzword side, makes the decisions. As a result, companies know that if they just throw a bunch of inflated marketing mumbo-jumbo at the user, while it will turn off every engineer asking "WTF does this actually do and how does it work", some C-Suite will run out and purchase it without asking, then force their entire team to use it because it "produces synergy of the AI block chain and big data cloud APIs while enhancing productivity". Then us Engineers are stuck using it, whether we wanted it or not.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-10-09 12:06:56+00:00
Markets should not primarily be a casino.

If you want to invest some of your income into a spread of companies? Go for it. But if all you are doing is trying to game the market? That's just gambling, go to a real casino and have some fun instead.

HFT should be driven by these types of market makers exactly for the purpose of decreasing the amount of unnecessary speculation and volatility in the markets. HFTs killing the spreads is one of the only reasons the markets didn't implode during covid despite the extraordinary fear and volatility that was impacting them.

You want a parasite? Look to hedge funds who just sit on piles of other people's cash to scoop obscene amounts off the top (relative to their actual contribution) for occassionally shuffling funds between financial instruments.
by gcanyon | 2025-10-09 12:06:58+00:00
You might appreciate this video where Matt Parker lays out the various classes of numbers and concludes by describing the normal numbers as being the overwhelmingly vast proportion of numbers and laments "we mathematicians think we know what's what, but so far we have found none of the numbers."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TkIe60y2GI
by moring | 2025-10-09 12:06:59+00:00
That Github issue doesn't really stress how serious he problem is. They make it sound like unnecessary parentheses get removed when they should be kept for clarify. What actually happens is that necessary parentheses get removed, altering the meaning of the expression. The example I encountered myself was this or similar to it (can't remember exactly):

(a || b) && c --> a || b && c

which then gets interpreted as

a || (b && c)
by afavour | 2025-10-09 12:07:03+00:00
IMO OP is correct that the bootcamp devs are scary, not React itself.

I’ve interviewed a number of engineers who have very little grasp of what the DOM is and how it works because React abstracts the whole thing away. Server components are another are where some niceties mean a bunch of developers aren’t really understanding what’s going on with underlying HTTP requests.

While React’s API surface is small the average app will come with a chunk of extra stuff: Redux, next.js, yadda yadda. People take entire courses that never leave that bubble.
by ionwake | 2025-10-09 12:07:20+00:00
Im not angry, Im disappointed. People are going out of their way to help you understand a topic, and the best you can do is be patronising? It means you are over confident, ignorant, rude, slow to learn, disrespectful and I think ungrateful.

If you read through the thread - to me its apparent.

Even if you make burner accounts, this behaviour doesn't help one grow.

But hey gramps could be wrong eh
by modo_mario | 2025-10-09 12:07:24+00:00
>At that point you seriously, seriously fucked up.

I think we've realistically introduced a source of political hubris for generations to come and created a scenario where if we're not being too optimistic about the perfect path being taken there will be sharp edges whichever way you go.

The same happened here in the past with our flemish/wallonian sectarianism that should've never been started and inflamed. In fact over many decades migration seems to be the only thing that managed to overtake it.

Acknowledge issues and start doing stuff these parties have been calling for for the past 2 decades to stop influx and you legitimize their ideas and admit fault in some ways. Don't do anything, continue the status quo claiming everything smells of roses and you just build up more sectarian bullshit.

Ideally you slow migration down without too much noise about it imo. For example you adjust treaties so that people rejected in other european countries can be sent back and actually follow trough and employ european political power to actually facilitate this sending back and discourages staying in a way that was possible in the past. You start limiting family reunion schemes depending on the country, etc Additionally you invest hard in integration and not in the weird paternalistic shit that i hear about from germany now.

If I remember wel here in Belgium in 2005 or so well over 70% had big concerns about migration and had it in their top 3 issues. That was 2 decades ago well before the big influxes. Not losing many of them was easier than getting them back that's for sure but there's plenty more still on that edge. I'd also say we're doing way worse than Germany on these fronts and additionally a far greater share of german migration is actually refugees i believe. The only reason we haven't had an afd equivalent governing yet is how fractured our political landscape is when compared and the flemish/wallonian split.

My guess for the future btw is that none of this will happen here and instead social trust will get worse and it will also be used as an excuse/force pushing to build down social security more regardless of who wins (like in denmark i believe).