MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cyberax | 2025-10-28 05:13:27+00:00
Yes, I'm sorry about that. I really should not write one-line comments without taking time to detail them. I will just stay silent in future in these cases.

> bit beyond the pale

Uhm... Why? It's an honest question. I thought that "horrifying" (as in "inducing horror") is a normal descriptor, not racially/sexually loaded or anything. The AI situation certainly induces real dread in me.
by flufluflufluffy | 2025-10-28 05:14:38+00:00
I should have been clear that it’s particularly with respect to word choice. All of the research we’re doing is accurately described by the proposal. It’s just codified in this weird new way of speaking where you can’t say certain trigger words which offend the snowflakes up top.

For me personally, I really don’t care if it’s grant fraud or not. We’re doing research into how to improve the healthcare and quality of life of less privileged groups. Our work is about helping people, full stop. It’s one of the best ways I could ever want my tax money being spent.
by runarberg | 2025-10-28 05:15:28+00:00
I suspect this is substacks default styling. It actually doesn’t set the tab-size which defaults to 8. However there seems to be some funky font-rendering going on so it adds an extra half (or maybe three-quarters) of a space per tab-character.

You can see this your self if you edit the markup in your browser’s inspector and add `contenteditable` attribute to the surrounding <pre>, then navigate down a line... it will jump forward just by slightly less then a column per indent level.
by rustystump | 2025-10-28 05:16:50+00:00
This is over the top. With tiny reframe i think the story is different. What is the avg number of google searches about suicid? What is the avg number of weekly openai users? (800m) Is this an increasing trend or just a “shock value” number?

Things are not as bleak as it seems and this number isnt even remotely surprising nor concerning to me.
by davorak | 2025-10-28 05:17:07+00:00
> Randomized studies show

I opened the link and searched for "random" and id not find anything. I thought there was going to be something like a randomized controlled trial or similar from what you said but if random does not show up on the search I am not sure what to look for or what you are referring to when you say "Randomized studies". I skimmed the article and did not spot anything that matched, but I may be missing something.
by mbac32768 | 2025-10-28 05:18:01+00:00
That implies there's some deep truth about reality in that statement rather than what it is, a completely arbitrary framing.

An equally arbitrary frame is "the world and life are wonderful".

The reason you may believe one instead of the other is not because one is more fundamentally true than the other, but because of a stochastic process that changed your mind state to one of those.

Once you accept that both states of mind are arbitrary and not a revealed truth, you can give yourself permission to try to change your thinking to the good framing.

And you can find the moral impetus to prevent suicide.
by Mawr | 2025-10-28 05:18:18+00:00
Sure there is, but you need to understand the variables involved. How expensive is the bike, how safe is he area, how long are you leaving it there for?

At its worst, people get their fancy bikes robbed as they're riding them in big cities like London; at its best, nobody in small villages locks their bikes because they all know each other.

In terms of locks, general advice is to get an angle-grinder resistant U-lock and lock it through the rear frame triangle+wheel+some solid object.

Since a U-lock like that is impossible to defeat with anything that's not a power tool, and you'd need to spend several minutes grinding through it [0] [1], most thieves will not bother. If they cut through whatever the bike is locked to, they still have a bike that's locked to itself.

For extra security you may want to do the same with the front wheel using something like a chain lock. Locking the saddle is also a good idea. Locks with alarms that notify you could be a decent idea too. And/or just get bike insurance.

[0]: https://youtu.be/v_0DB3gBM3Y?t=475

[1]: https://youtu.be/LD32NMCGDF0?t=2440
by vinhnx | 2025-10-28 05:19:53+00:00
I'm still refining and working on my coding agent, VT Code. Two weeks ago, I posted a comment [0] to regular Ask HN: What are you doing this week? and got out-of my expectation feedback. Thank you HN community!

The last 2 weeks I have been making constants and regular update to VT Code, and it still evolving to a hopefully more capable coding agent. Most recent notable release is official VS Code extension and OpenVSX distribution [1][2] so that you can use VT Code agent inside your favorite code IDE like VS Code, Windsurf, Cursor, Kiro and Eclipse.

About VT Code, it is a Rust-based terminal coding agent with semantic code intelligence via Tree-sitter (parsers for Rust, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, Java) and ast-grep (structural pattern matching and refactoring).

It supports multiple LLM providers: OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, DeepSeek, Gemini, OpenRouter, Z.AI, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax; all with automatic failover, prompt caching, and token-efficient context management. Configuration occurs entirely through vtcode.toml, sourcing constants from vtcode-core/src/config/constants.rs and model IDs from docs/models.json to ensure reproducibility and avoid hardcoding. [3]

Recently I've added Agent Client Protocol (ACP) integration. VT Code is now a fully compatible ACP agent, works with any ACP-clients: Zed (first-class support), Neovim, marimo notebook. [4]

[0] https://github.com/vinhnx/vtcode

[1] https://open-vsx.org/extension/nguyenxuanvinh/vtcode-compani...

[2] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=nguyenxu...

[3] https://crates.io/crates/vtcode

[4] https://agentclientprotocol.com
by Grimblewald | 2025-10-28 05:20:41+00:00
Right, you hit the nail on the head.

> problem is people who use without reviewing outputs

the problem here is there is no reason to beleive OP reviewed or even fully understands the code. There is plenty of evidence of OP lying.

All in all best case scenario is we have a codebase made by someone dishonest and incompetant, and at worst it is plausible there is an intentional effort to obfuscated the codebase in an effort to slip people malware.

the entire thing stinks, and cannot be trusted. It deserves (oweing the dishonesty) a rather strong negative response and nothing more.
by anonym29 | 2025-10-28 05:22:34+00:00
Sorry to sound like an ad, but I'd hate myself if I didn't take the opportunity to mention Accrescent, which is a big leap forward from an end-user security perspective vs F-Droid: https://accrescent.app/

Of course, if Google succeeds in their mission to kill AOSP, kill unsigned APK installation (even for power users) and force all developers to submit photo ID, this is kind of moot.

The mobile FOSS community would benefit from accelerating transition away from Android to alternatives, even as incomplete and insecure as they are at the moment. The upstream maintainer of the OS itself is an entity that is hostile to the ownership rights end users have over their own devices, has been doing a ton of engineering work on "DRM" (to "manage" aka remove YOUR rights), has shown warning signs of abandoning the open source nature of AOSP itself, and has generally signaled extensive hostility towards their own end users, on an ongoing basis, across more or less all of their product lines. Alphabet/Google has been very clear about telegraphing how much they hate your freedom and how hard they're working to alleviate you from the burdensome weight of being able to decide what runs on your own hardware that you purchased.

I say this as a disappointed and worried GrapheneOS user. You can rip Google out of Android. Ripping AOSP out of Android is a much more complicated and much less realistic task, though. I'm not advocating for everyone moving their entire PROD workflow off of Android and onto a Linux smartphone today, but we shouldn't be burying our heads in the sand to the long-term risks that Alphabet itself poses to the availability, auditability, trustworthiness, and usefulness of AOSP.
by Retric | 2025-10-28 05:23:23+00:00
TDD fits better when you use a bottom up style of coding.

For a simple example, FuzzBuzz as a loop that has some if statements inside is not so easy to test. Instead break it in half so you have a function that does the fiddly bits and a loop that just contains “output += MakeFizzBizzLineForNumeber(X);” Now it’s easy to come up tests for likely mistakes and conceptually you’re working with two simpler problems with clear boundaries between them.

In a slightly different context you might have a function that decides which kind of account to create based on some criteria which then returns the account type rather than creating the account. That function’s logic is then testable by passing in some parameters and then looking at the type of account returned without actually creating any accounts. Getting good at this requires looking at programs in a more abstract way, but a secondary benefit is rather easy to maintain code at the cost of a little bookkeeping. Just don’t go overboard, the value is breaking out bits that are likely to contain bugs at some point where abstraction for abstraction’s sake is just wasted effort.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-10-28 05:23:42+00:00
I was with you that there are similarities & was happy to see another take.

Its a very strong & weight claim to say that fnox is a copy of secretspec though. There can be a lot of overlap. But there have been lots of others similar efforts too, such as sops, and many before.

It's much too complicated in my book to be making big claims like copying. That really pisses me against the software
by Arainach | 2025-10-28 05:25:02+00:00
In principle, having road charge be a combination of mileage and axle weight makes an incredible amount of sense - it taxes the factors which contribute to road wear.

Unfortunately, these proposals all seem to end up at "let the government location track your vehicle at all times", which is a privacy disaster - a disaster even worse than the current widespread use of automatic license plate readers. Unless such conditions are removed these programs are gross curtailments of freedom which should be opposed.
by rifty | 2025-10-28 05:25:06+00:00
I agree because it reads as it will process in the direction I normally read. But I do think one of the benefits of the function approach is that the scope isn't cluttered with staging variables.

For these reasons one of the things I like to do in Swift is set up a function called ƒ that takes a single closure parameter. This is super minimal because Swift doesn't require parenthesis for the trailing closure. It allows me to do the above inline without cluttering the scope while also not increasing the amount of redirection using discrete function declarations would cause.

The above then just looks like this:

ƒ { var users = db.getUsers(); var expiredUsers = getExpiredUsers(users, Date.now()); var expiryEmails = generateExpiryEmails(expiredUsers);\ email.bulkSend(expiryEmails); }
by pjmlp | 2025-10-28 05:25:19+00:00
Moving goalposts, the point was what are the native APIs.

Office framework would not exist without Win32, and usually it is made available on Win32, e.g. ribbon as common control.

Xamarin was never used at Microsoft, how to expect the rewrite to go any better. This acquisition was a mess, almost everything from Xamarin is gone.

Again, not a native API.

Blazor only matters for Web applications and PWAs, unless Windows turns into ChromeOS there is nothing native about it.
by jader201 | 2025-10-28 05:25:42+00:00
> Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.

Interesting and different perspective vs. what many others often say (but that’s one of the points he’s making).

I feel a lot of climate articles — and the comments attached to their HN threads — tend to favor more of the doomsday message he’s arguing against here.
by p5v | 2025-10-28 05:26:04+00:00
They do. I’ve been teaching cross-career programming courses in the past, where most of my students had day jobs, some, involving hard physical work. They’d gladly swap all that for the opportunity to feed their families by writing code.

Just comes to show how the grass is always greener when you look on the other side.

That said, I also plan to retire up in the mountains soon, rather than keep feeding the machine.
by jongjong | 2025-10-28 05:26:12+00:00
Software development is one of these things which often seems really easy from the outside but can be insanely complicated.

I had this experience with my co-founder where I was shipping features quickly and he got used to a certain pace of progress. Then we ended up with like 6 different ways to perform a particular process with some differences between them; I had reused as much code as possible; all passing through the same function but without tests, it became challenging to avoid bugs/regressions... My co-founder could not understand why I was pushing back on implementing a particular feature which seemed very simple to him at a glance.

He could not believe me why I was pushing back. Thought I was just being stubborn. I explained to him all the technical challenges involved and it took me like 30 minutes to explain (at a high level) all the technical considerations and trade-offs and how much complexity would be introduced by adding this new feature and he agreed with my point of view.

People who aren't used to building software cannot grasp the complexity. Beyond a certain point, it's like every time my co-founder asked me to do something related to a particular part of the code, I'd spend several minutes pointing out the logical contradictions in his own requirements. The non-technical person thinks about software development in a kind of magical way. They don't really understand what they're asking. This isn't even getting into the issue of technical constraints which is another layer.
by txrx0000 | 2025-10-28 05:26:37+00:00
Yes. Indulging in that desire to boss over other people (and also hubris, thinking oneself knows better) was fine before social media because it was hard to have a say over what others hear at scale. People congregated into groups that moderated speech internally, but those small groups rarely got large enough to influence nation-states. Democracy worked fine because those small groups were independently-thinking entities despite being internally homogenous. And individuals from different groups could still talk to eachother intelligently because the inter-group rifts weren't that large. The groups weren't that large. Many small groups existed and could debate eachother to generate effective policies in a democratic society.

Now there are big social media mobs. The number of independently-thinking entities have gone down drastically over the past 2 decades. We're ranking, filtering, and moderating ourselves into authoritarian governments ran by Internet echo chamber mobs.
Show HN: Ordered – A sorted collection library for Zig
by habedi0 | 2025-10-28 05:26:38+00:00
I made an early version of a sorted collection library for Zig. Sorted collections are data structures that maintain the data in sorted order. Examples of these data structures are `java.util.TreeMap` in Java and `std::map` in C++. These data structures are mainly used for fast lookups (point search) and fast range searches.

The library is available on GitHub: https://github.com/CogitatorTech/ordered
by mmooss | 2025-10-28 05:27:23+00:00
> Oral exams and quizzes are hard for reasons unrelated to understanding the subject matter. Language barriers, public speaking anxiety, exam stress, etc

People have some different challenges writing papers and taking oral and written quizzes, but is one way or the other necessarily easier? For writing papers, think about language barriers, anxiety about writing ability, stress of writing papers, need for self-motivation and time management, etc.
by 0xblinq | 2025-10-28 05:27:46+00:00
As somebody using Svelte for a real production application, I can only 100% agree with their recommendations regarding Svelte because of the overall dev experience is unmatched. It just feels right. Easy. Simple. And I'm not even considering performance here as another benefit.

I usually make the analogy of a video game, where you can pick the difficulty. Svelte/SvelteKit is working in the "easy" difficulty level. You can achieve the same end result and keep your sanity (and your hair).
by xeonmc | 2025-10-28 05:28:47+00:00
I’m also wondering if it’s possible to use MoQ from iroh, for streaming unidirectional broadcast data that don’t need historical buffers, mainly to freeload on Cloudflare’s free MoQ relays.

Also how do the public relays provides by Iroh compare with Tailscale’s public DERP servers, operationally wise?
by p5v | 2025-10-28 05:29:35+00:00
Surprisingly, to me, it’s the other ways around - and, I’ve been writing code for two decades now. I love programming and even with AI, I will always have the last word, but I also realized along the way that programming is only a means to an end - you write code to get something done, not to write the code itself. With AI, I can finally give chance to my hundreds of ideas and see what sticks.
by mmooss | 2025-10-28 05:30:41+00:00
One major missing piece in using AIs is self-expression. The idea of writing is to express your own ideas, to put yourself on the page; someone writing for you, AI or biological, can't do that. There are far too many nuances and subtleties.

I suspect many students write to pass the class, and AI can do that. Perhaps the problem is the incentives to write that way.
by manmal | 2025-10-28 05:31:44+00:00
Yes they do, most of the time. Then they don’t. Yesterday, I told codex that it must always run tests by invoking a make target. That target is even configurable w/ parameters, eg to filter by test name. But always, at some point in the session, codex started disregarding that rule and fell back to using the platform native test tool directly. I used strong language to steer it back, but 20% or so of context later, it did that again.
by yibg | 2025-10-28 05:33:54+00:00
There is a also merit at the individual level vs merit at the organizational level. e.g. most tech companies are male dominated, but many serve primarily women (Amazon retail, Pinterest, Etsy etc). So having more women in the companies, especially in positions to directly impact the customer experience is important even if we disregard individual merit. Ditto for products that serve primarily minority populations etc.
by unscaled | 2025-10-28 05:35:52+00:00
I feel like Go's concept of readability is very Blub-oriented[1]. Can a Blub programmer read this line? Then it's readable. Sometimes Go fans would say that this code:

var result := []string{} for i = 0; i < items.Length(); i++ { item := items.Get(i) if item < threshold { result = append(result, converToString(item)) } }

return result

I more readable than this code:

return items .filter { it < threshold } .map { convertToString(it) }

The argument is that everybody understand what the loop does, it's just a stupid loop. Bring back an an Algol 68, Pascal or C programmer from the 70s and they all understand what a for loop is. But my second example requires you to learn about filter and map and closures and implicit parameters like 'it'.

Of course, once you do understand these very complicated concepts, the code above is far more readable: it clearly states WHAT the program does (filtering all values below the threshold and converting them to string) rather than HOW it does that (which nobody cares about). "readability" here is only counted from the narrow perspective of an imperative programmer who is not familiar with functional declarative data processing.

I feel the same about the "ro" examples in the OP. I don't particularly like that ro takes (mostly because Go forces its hand, I assume), like having to put everything in an explicit pipe, but I find the example far more readable than the pure Go example which combines loops, channels and WaitGroups. That's far worse than the loop example I gave in this reply, to be honest, and I really don't know why people say this example is readable. I guess you can optimize it a little, but I always found both channel and WaitGroups waitable, unreadable and error prone. They are only "readable" in narrow perverted sense that has somehow become prevalent in the Go community, where "readability" is redefined to mean: no closures, no immutable values, no generics, no type safety and certainly nothing that smells like FP.

[1] https://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox
by Mistletoe | 2025-10-28 05:36:26+00:00
Fourth tough truth about climate change: humans need LLM AI like a fish needs a bicycle and Microsoft is helping burn down the world to give it to them, reversing any progress that was made in reducing emissions and climate change in order to pump the stock price in the AI bubble.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...

>Given the direction AI is headed—more personalized, able to reason and solve complex problems on our behalf, and everywhere we look—it’s likely that our AI footprint today is the smallest it will ever be. According to new projections published by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in December, by 2028 more than half of the electricity going to data centers will be used for AI. At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of all US households.
by tomhow | 2025-10-28 05:36:42+00:00
> Men are inherently smarter and more talented.

This is about the purest form of flamebait there is, and thus is not welcome on HN. There are several guidelines that ask us to avoid this style of commenting, notably:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously...

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
by gs17 | 2025-10-28 05:38:19+00:00
> What would be more interesting is how effective ChatGPT is being in guiding them towards other ideas. Most suicide prevention notices are a joke - pretending that "call this hotline" means you've done your job and that's that.

I've triggered its safety behavior (for being frustrated, which it helpfully decided was the same as being suicidal), and it is the exact joke of a statement you said. It suddenly reads off a script that came from either Legal or HR.

Although weirdly, other people seem to get a much shorter, obviously not part of the chat message, while I got a chat message, so maybe my messages just made it regurgitate something similar. The shorter "safety" message is the same concept though, it's just: "It sounds like you’re carrying a lot right now, but you don’t have to go through this alone. You can find supportive resources here."