MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by totallymike | 2025-10-05 16:59:26+00:00
I’ve seen you make this response to a couple different threads, and I wonder what you mean by it.

Are you just hoping to gain more insight on the differing proposed technologies and waiting for someone to give you more information, or are you expressing frustration that that people have their own opinions on which layers to use for their own setups?

If you’re simply asking for information on how to use docker, and how to adapt TFA to include it, you’re in luck. One can find many tutorials on how to dockerize a service (docker’s own website has quite a lot of excellent tutorials and documentation on this topic), and plenty of examples of how to harden it, use SSL, et cetera. This is a very well trodden path.

That said, I’m tempted to read your response with the latter interpretation and my response would be to observe that holding a different opinion on something isn’t inherently ungrateful, or rude, nor is it presumptuous to share that one would, say, recommend dockerizing the production app instead of deploying directly to the server.

That’s the nature of discourse, and the whole reason why hacker news has a comment section in the first place. A lovely article such as TFA is shared by someone, and then folks will want to talk about it and share their own insights and opinions on the contents. Disagreeing with a point in the article is a feature, not a bug.
by pruufsocial | 2025-10-05 16:59:35+00:00
LLMs are the new search engines. People aren’t just Googling anymore — they’re asking ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity. JuicyLinks.ai helps your content show up inside these AI answers. Think SEO, but for LLMs: Generative Engine Optimization (GEO).

We analyze how large language models interpret your site, then optimize structure, metadata, and knowledge signals so your brand becomes part of the generative conversation.

juicylinks.ai
by trod1234 | 2025-10-05 17:00:26+00:00
That's a false dichotomy.

You also neglect that all business must necessarily account for inflation in their cost model (an impossible task). Enshittification is just the end result of money-printing through banking loans on the business cycle, that's why it follows the same adoption curves as ponzi.

The end result of that cycle is predictable, and has been discussed quite rationally but many people don't actually read books these days so its become lost knowledge.

The sieving and centralizing monopolization we see all comes from those entities being closer to the source of money than individuals. The systems of banking today neglect the true sources of the wealth of nations instead utilizing slave labor through clever recapture (of debasement lost to inflation). In aggregate these things creates a system where over-expenditure must be paid for by your children's distributed slavery; creating a hellscape of an environment where they are disadvantaged and may not survive. Its al indirect, but indirect things can be quite powerful and if you don't have the mind to grasp it your just trapped like an animal, not given the choice. A slave.

Usury eventually and inevitably gets to catastrophic levels given sufficient time, as all positive feedback systems do, left unattended.
by yieldcrv | 2025-10-05 17:00:42+00:00
> if you can’t get ahead, why not spend your time absorbed in an alternate reality, perhaps including alternate realities where you can get ahead, like GTA ... That said, what I see in young people around me (because of my age, there’s quite a few) is a lot of addiction, not nihilism.

I think we both conclude that its not a conscious choice, screens are addictive.

I also think many people levying this scrutiny are just as addicted.

I took a community college class a few years back and for the first few sessions I was fidgeting, until I course corrected because I knew that was abnormal for me from the last time I was in formal education. My ability to course correct made me think about how younger generations may be at a disadvantage because they don't know any other way to operate.

> The underlying question behind my post is essentially, does Cal Newport’s theory of success - so good they can’t ignore you - hold? And what happens to society when a generation is sucked into what they themselves literally refer to as “brain rot”?

I think it holds, income and work look different to many people. A steady high paying job is still optimal for a broad population, but being influential on social media or making a roblox game, all of which is built in the ecosystem they spend time on, seems practical too.
by preisschild | 2025-10-05 17:00:59+00:00
The US unfortunately has almost built no standardized / modular reactors. Everyone was custom. That is why they were so expansive to build.

SNUPPS and the AP-1000 are the only "standardized" nuclear power plant designs built in the US and there were only a small number of them built. Not enough to benefit from economies of scale benefits through standardization and modularization.
by ben_w | 2025-10-05 17:01:05+00:00
> Do you think a senior developer needs a basic understanding of the language they use

4 years ago, I'd have said "obviously".

At this point? Only for specialist languages the LLMs suck at. (Last I tried, "suck at" included going all the way from yacc etc. upwards when trying to make a custom language).

For most of us, what's now important is: Design patterns; architectures; knowing how to think of big-O consequences; and the ability to review what the AI farts out, which sounds like it should need an understanding of the programming language in question, but it's surprisingly straightforward to read code in languages you're not fmiliar with, and it gets even easier when your instruction to the AI includes making the code easy to review.
by afdbcreid | 2025-10-05 17:01:06+00:00
I think I did say:

> although none is as integrated as SPARK I believe

And yes, they're experimental (for now). But some are also used in production. For example, AWS uses Kani for some of their code, and recently launched a program to formally verify the Rust standard library.

Whether the language was designed for it does not matter, as long as it works. And it works well.

> `unsafe` blocks create unverifiable boundaries

Few of the tools can verify unsafe code is free of UB, e.g. https://github.com/verus-lang/verus. Also, since unsafe code should be small and well-encapsulated, this is less of a problem.

> the trait system and lifetime inference are too complex to model completely

You don't need to prove anything about them: they're purely a type level thing. At the level these tools are operating, (almost) nothing remains from them.

> procedural macros generate code that can't be statically verified

The code that procedural macros generate is visible to these tools and they can verify it well.

> interior mutability (`Cell`, `RefCell`) bypasses type system guarantees

Although it's indeed harder, some of the tools do support interior mutability (with extra annotations I believe).

> Rust can panic in safe code

That is not a problem - in fact most of them prove precisely that: that code does not panic.

> Most critically, Rust lacks a formal language specification with mathematical semantics

That is a bit of a problem, but not much since you can follow what rustc does (and in fact it's easier for these tools, since they integrate with rustc).

> Rust's semantics are informally specified and constantly evolving (async, const generics, GATs)

Many of those advancements are completely erased at the levels these tools are operating. The rest does need to be handled, and the interface to rustc is unstable. But you can always pin your Rust version.

> This isn't tooling immaturity though, it's a consequence of language design.

No it's not, Rust is very well amenable to formal verification, despite, as you said, not being designed for it (due to the shared xor mutable rule, as I said), Perhaps even more amenable than Ada.

Also this whole comment seems unfair to Rust since, if I understand correctly, SPARK also does not support major parts of Ada (maybe there aren't unsupported features, but you not all features are fully supported). As I said I know nothing about Ada or SPARK, but if we compare the percentage of the language the tools are supporting, I won't be surprised if that of the Rust tools is bigger (despite Rust being a bigger language). These tools just support Rust really well.
by reaperducer | 2025-10-05 17:01:08+00:00
A low-res display would be fine. In fact the same display as the original Model 100 would be great.

Use one for a while before you decide.

I still use mine every couple of weeks for distraction-free writing, and to read the news. The display updates VERY slowly. So slowly that you don't have to be a very strong typist to get way ahead of it.
by ryandrake | 2025-10-05 17:01:32+00:00
I agree with this. I've been pretty critical of AI coding, but at the urging of some other HN posters, I shelled out a few bucks and started giving Claude Code a chance. After about 2 months of using it for various personal Python and C++ projects, my current problem with it is 1. how much babysitting you need to do to keep it on track and writing code the way you'd like it written, and 2. how much effort you need to spend after it writes the code, to clean it up and fix it. This tool would probably help quite a bit with 2.

I find for every 5 minutes of Claude writing code, I need to spend about 55 minutes cleaning up the various messes. Removing dead code that Claude left there because it was confused and "trying things". Finding opportunities for code reuse, refactoring, reusing functions. Removing a LOT of scaffolding and unnecessary cruft (e.g. this class with no member variables and no state could have just been a local function). And trivial stylistic things that add up, like variable naming, lint errors, formatting.

It takes 5 minutes to make some ugly thing that works, but an hour to have an actual finished product that's sanded and polished. Would it have taken an hour just to write the code myself without assistance? Maybe? Probably? Jury is still out for me.
by quotemstr | 2025-10-05 17:01:35+00:00
> Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.

My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why.

It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior.

Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that?

Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt?

Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors.

You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear.

> Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?

You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
by wkat4242 | 2025-10-05 17:02:00+00:00
This is the impression I get too and I hear it a lot from our users too. Some have provided clear examples of something prompted to their personal ChatGPT sub and the company copilot one, and yes, it is often much lower quality. As it is the same product under the hood, there must be some kind of squeezing going on behind the scenes. And understandably because they're just reselling a third party service and they want their own margin on it.

I also wonder why Microsoft pushes it so hard when they don't even have a competitive LLM themselves. They're basically admitting failure (similar to when they moved Edge to a rebranded Chrome by the way).
by eszed | 2025-10-05 17:02:32+00:00
In Assistive Access mode? What version are you on?

My dad passed in the spring, so it's moot for me, but I'd be glad to know that they've fixed it for other people.

[Edit: someone else in this thread said it's still bugged in 18.6.2, so if you've got a working build it'll be particularly helpful to know which it is. Maybe even for Apple - I maintain a fond delusion that folks who matter still read this board.]
by getnormality | 2025-10-05 17:02:49+00:00
I stumbled across this AI paper just now. It sounds intimidatingly technical, but if you read the abstract and look at Figures 1 and 2 and Equation 6, I think it's got some neat and accessible conceptual ideas.

Supervised learning is a much more mature technology than reinforcement learning, so it seems like a good thing to leverage that.
by smartbit | 2025-10-05 17:02:50+00:00
GarageFS S3 compatibility https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/reference-manua... vs

- Openstack Swift - CEPH Object Gateway - Riak CS - OpenIO

SeaweedFS vs. JuiceFS https://juicefs.com/docs/community/comparison/juicefs_vs_sea...
by skydhash | 2025-10-05 17:03:17+00:00
Forums is fundamentally community based, where everyone is expected to pitch in. While companies are socials, there's not a lot of community going around. There are projects, but the deciders form a very small subset of the involved people.

By the way, for email, the etiquette would be to include the context of the discussion in the invitation for the new person coming in. Or send the archive of the discussion to the person. But for the latter to happen would require a much better email client than what most people are using.
by more_corn | 2025-10-05 17:03:24+00:00
So like right now? Writing structures your thinking and clarifies your ideas. Students just have chat gpt write for them.

Vibe coding takes the heavy thinking and offloads it to the machine. Even people who know how turn off their brains when they vibe code.

The time is now. The effects are available for inspection today. Pair with ai on something you know well. Find the place where it confidently acts but makes an error. Check in on your ability to reactivate your mind and start solving the problem.

It feels like waking up without coffee. Our minds are already mostly asleep when we lean on Ai for anything.
by bdcravens | 2025-10-05 17:03:24+00:00
> That's his choice, it's _his_ cancer after all

While you're right, freedom of choice implies acceptance of risk and consequence. Leveraging wealth to jump the line, and presumably taking a liver from someone who could have used it, seems like the opposite of that.

A similar example from recent years is those who rejected all medical advise regarding COVID, and were still entitled to a hospital bed and respirator when it didn't work out for them.
by doctorpangloss | 2025-10-05 17:03:32+00:00
Consolidation around Unity and Unreal has probably been good for everyone, yeah. Even Godot benefits from consolidation, they rely on good APIs for middlewares that were made for Unity and Unreal.

Some parts of Steam consolidation have been good. It forces kids to have stakes (their whole account) that they lose if they hack / cheat in multiplayer games. Objectively good. But having one store I don’t know: you pay both 30% and you are sourcing users for CSGO and DOTA2.

Anyway I don’t really know what consolidation means to you.
by dagmx | 2025-10-05 17:04:09+00:00
It’s never nothing, but it’s a matter of whether that something is enough of a differentiator.

More so, can they demonstrate that in interviews. We specifically structure our interviews so coding is only one part of them, and try and suss out other aspects of a candidate (problem solving, project leading, working with different disciplines) and then weight those against the needs of the role to avoid over indexing on any specific aspect. It also lets us see if there are other roles for them that might be better fits.

So a weak coder has opportunities to show other qualities. But generally someone interviewing for a coding heavy role who isn’t a strong coder tends to not sufficiently demonstrate those other qualities. Though of course there are exceptions.
by tgv | 2025-10-05 17:04:18+00:00
We're clearly having different views on society. Yours seems through a strict financial lens, but correct me if I'm wrong.

> potentially huge if you do.

No, it isn't. You've just incurred a (probably larger) loss, elsewhere. There's no pay-off. Insurance makes large losses bearable for the individual and society. That's unlike gambling.
by mostertoaster | 2025-10-05 17:04:36+00:00
> And sure, if you can express your intent clearly in English

I think it is underestimated how difficult this truly is.

And this will always remain uniquely human because only The human truly knows their intent (sometimes).

I’ve had the AIs (ala the google) after I say “make me a script that does XYZ”, say here you go, and if I asked does it work and it tests it out will say yep it does, but only I will know if it is actually doing what I intended. I often will have to clarify my intent because I didn’t communicate well the first time. As we’ve all seen even amongst humans to each other, intent is not always well expressed.

There will always be a judgement made by a human with yes that is my intent or no it is not.

But even in old days of writing the “code” itself, most bugs were you not precisely saying what you wanted the program to do.

I think it’s correct to think of LLMs as compiling English to code, like c++ getting compiled to assembly.
by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-10-05 17:04:44+00:00
Hmm. You got me thinking. I rarely delete conversations, but I don't randomly engage either unless I am curious how llm will respond in a given scenario. For example, last time I was comparing how my output compared against some of the other online community. Maybe curate is too strong a word? Maybe I select for specific desired paths?
Ask HN: How do you balance GenAI productivity with learning as a junior/mid dev?
by whizusukite | 2025-10-05 17:05:30+00:00
I’m in my early-mid career, and I’m struggling to balance between the benefits of playing with agentic coding tools now and losing fundamentals of coding.

It feels like senior engineers gained their skills through hands-on programming, and while these new tools can be powerful for those who learn to use them well, I sometimes struggle to balance keeping up with productivity while feeling like I’m missing out on deeper learning.

Any suggestions on how to balance between these two at this point? Would love to hear both povs!
by abetusk | 2025-10-05 17:05:36+00:00
Nice article!

The idea is to make a pleasing "swooping" curve. It creates some number of random points simplex noise [0], sorts them using Hilbert sorting [1], then connects them with a hobby curve [2] [3].

Simplex noise is akin to Perlin noise, and is often used (imo) in these contexts to create spatially correlated random points.

Hilbert sorting is the one I hadn't heard of but the idea is simple enough: overlay a Hilbert curve, see where the points maps to, order them by their order on the curve. You can choose a resolution for the Hilbert curve recursion and use a fast spatial to index lookup to find the index order. Hilbert curves have the property of "locality", so that points near in embedded space map to nearby points in index space, and vice versa, so nearer points in 2d/3d tend to be nearer points in the 1d index traversal, giving you a better sort order than just choosing them at random.

Hobby curves are like Bezier curves but provide more "human-pleasing" curves by making trying to enforce a curvature connectivity constraint instead of just a differentiable constraint.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_noise

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_noise

[2] https://www.jakelow.com/blog/hobby-curves

[3] https://github.com/vlad-x/hobby-curves
by johnmaguire | 2025-10-05 17:05:52+00:00
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335287/#s4

> When compared to individuals associated with a right-wing ideology, individuals adhering to a left-wing ideology had 68% lower odds of engaging in violent (vs. nonviolent) radical behavior (b = −1.15, SE = 0.13, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32, P < 0.001).
by 8organicbits | 2025-10-05 17:05:54+00:00
Ownership is probably the wrong word since the legal grant is term limited contract for exclusive use under terms of service. Selling subdomain usage grants (also under contract and TOS) feels quite similar.

Top level domains can change pricing, terms, or cease operation. Freenom is a great case study, as they previously operated TLDs. At the edges, a well-operated subdomain service could offer stronger ownership-like behavior than a top level domain.
by lil_csom | 2025-10-05 17:06:20+00:00
Hey, as it's a freemium tool, I've decided to include ads that are while full page, easy to close - to make back some of the free tokens used. I figured this would be OK - but if it gives off such an impression, then I might remove it. Or are you talking about the recommendation to add it to the phone home screen? I added that as I did that to access the website when I use it a bit easier and figured I could maybe nudge users gently, to do so if they want - more like as a reminder.
by wartywhoa23 | 2025-10-05 17:06:28+00:00
Someone up high deems keeping people in ipv4 symmetric NAT jail preferable to allowing the anarchy of globally static ipv6 address space which might enable people to serve their websites and services to the interconnected world from their own devices, which doesn't align well with big business / big politics models.

Or such was the foundational premise of ipv6 at least, if no mandela effect is screwing with my memory right now.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-05 17:06:39+00:00
> the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero

Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation.

It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf.

> Where's the economics model that captures that?

Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer?

> You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones

Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
by mikert89 | 2025-10-05 17:06:50+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age

"[Men] lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all devils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace."

Myths of pre ice age life were spoken of by plato
by wkat4242 | 2025-10-05 17:07:05+00:00
> I get the point that few are currently paying for it, but there isn't all that much pressure to do so right now. That will come, late

Yes that is inevitable. But it's exactly why I won't use it. It feels like a scam, the typical drug dealer model. Get them hooked on free stuff, and then milk their addiction.

I almost only use local LLMs now. They're not as good, no. But at least they are mine and nobody will raise the price suddenly. Some pro AI models I just use with API, for the rare instance where local just doesn't cut it. It costs me a few bucks per month that way, not 20 or 30.