MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anenefan | 2025-10-28 00:35:39+00:00
Interesting but I'd suggest something a little simpler. Pricing means hassle but it is a means to stop big content droppers, not just AI or big companies. Rather than per article perhaps just limit how many posts an individual can post a day - thus it urges people to make those posts count.

Pay fee per year or more, a small one, that allows posting a small number of posts a day, and reporting only one or two times a day - otherwise people and bots will abuse it.

Asking the public to validate what goes is one of the problems of the internet at the moment. Instead it's better to have people who naturally fact check stuff to provide links to other proper sources online they are aware of, or at least some idea why whatever might be wrong. That's the other problem the net has at the moment, people truly don't engage apart from yappers who really don't care how fluffy their content is.
by throwaway314155 | 2025-10-28 00:35:49+00:00
I am one of these people (mentally ill - bipolar 1). I’ve seen others others via hospitalization that i would simply refuse to let them use ChatGPT because it is so sycophantic and would happily encourage delusions and paranoid thinking given the right prompts.

> At least OpenAI is trying to do something about it.

In this instance it’s a bit like saying “at least Tesla is working on the issue” after deploying a dangerous self driving vehicle to thousands.

edit: Hopefully I don't come across as overly anti-llm here. I use them on a daily basis and I truly hope there's a way to make them safe for mentally ill people. But history says otherwise (facebook/insta/tiktok/etc.)
by TheDong | 2025-10-28 00:36:42+00:00
If someone can template in data, it's a lot easier to just set "dhcp-script=/arbitrary/code"

If the person templating isn't validating data, then it's already RCE to let someone template into this config file without careful validation.

... Also, this is a segfault, the chance anyone can get an RCE out of '*r = 0' for r being slightly out of bounds is close to nil, you'd need an actively malicious compiler.

While CVE's in theory are "just a number to coordinate with no real meaning", in practice a "Severity: High" CVE will trigger a bunch of work for people, so it's obviously not ideal to issue garbage ones.
by Cleonis | 2025-10-28 00:36:49+00:00
While most authors posit the stationary action concept as a given, it is in fact possible to go from the newtonian formulation to the Lagrangian formulation, and from there to Hamilton's stationary action.

That is, the relations between the various formulations of classical mechanics are all bi-directional.

At the hub of it al is the work-energy theorem.

I created a resource with interactive diagrams. Move a slider to sweep out variation. The diagram shows how the kinetic energy and the potential energy respond to the variation that is applied.

Starter page: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/stationary_action.php The above page features a case that allows particularly vivid demonstration. An object is launched upwards, subject to a potential that increases with the cube of the height. The initial velocity was tweaked to achieve that after two seconds the object is back to height zero. (The two seconds implementation is for alignment with two other diagrams, in which other potentials have been implemented; linear and quadratic.)

Article with mathematical treatment: http://cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/energy_position_equation.p...

To go from F=ma to Hamilton's stationary action is a two stage proces:

- Derivation of the work-energy theorem from F=ma

- Demonstration that in cases such that the work-energy theorem holds good Hamilton's stationary action holds good also.

General remarks: In the case of Hamilton's stationary action the criterion is: The true trajectory corresponds to a point in variation space such that the derivative of Hamilton's action is zero. The criterion derivative-is-zero is sufficient. Whether the derivative-is-zero point is at a mininum or a maximum of Hamilton's action is of no relevance; it plays no part in the reason why Hamilton's stationary action holds good.

The true trajectory has the property that the rate of change of kinetic energy matches the rate of change of potential energy. Hamilton's stationary action relates to that.

The power of an interactive diagram is that it can present information simultaneously. Move a slider and you see both the kinetic energy and the potential energy change in response. It's like looking at the same thing from multiple angles all at once.
by apswin | 2025-10-28 00:37:38+00:00
Hey Everyone!

Wanted to share an app I built recently while hosting poker games at my home.

Got tired of the awkward "who owes who?" conversations at poker night, so I used Claude, Cursor, Vercel and built pokersettler.club

What it does:

Create a poker room, add players directly or share a link to join

Track buy-ins during the game

Enter final chip counts

Auto-calculates settlements (minimizes transactions like Splitwise)

Real-time sync across phones

No login, no BS. Just share a 4-letter code and play. Works great. Thought other poker players might find it useful. Free forever.

For UI / UX experience, I took inspiration from Drawful games which have a similar room code based approach with no signup needed.

Would appreciate the community if you can review and upvote in the Product Hunt page as well - https://www.producthunt.com/products/poker-settler/poker-set....

Feedback welcome!
by chermi | 2025-10-28 00:37:41+00:00
I don't really understand what point you or parent are trying to make. SAT approaches have been used in CASP, an open competition for protein structure prediction. They have been trying for decades with SAT. The transformer based models blew every approach out of the water to the point of approaching experimental resolution.

Why am supposed to pretend SAT is being treated unfairly or whatever you guys are expounding? Based on your response and the parent's, don't think you'd be happy if SAT approaches WERE cited.

Maybe you and parent think every preexisting approach hasn't been proven to be inferior to the transformer approach until some equivalent amount of compute has been thrown at them compared to the transformer approach? That's the best I can come up with. There is no room for 'scaling' gains with SAT solvers that will be found with more compute, it's not an ML approach. That is, it doesn't learn with more data. If you mean something else more specific I'd be interested to know.
by ImJamal | 2025-10-28 00:38:16+00:00
> Considering REAL ID is not sufficient for DHS or ICE, I highly doubt it.

You can get a real id without being a citizen so it shouldn't be used as proof of citizenship.

From the California DMV site:

> Any Californian who can prove their current legal presence in the United States (U.S.) with one of the accepted identity documents (original or certified copy) is eligible to receive a REAL ID driver license or identification (DL/ID) card. This includes all U.S. citizens, permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens (Green Card holders), and those with temporary legal status, such as recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and holders of a valid student or employment visa.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-licenses-identification...
by MoltenMan | 2025-10-28 00:38:32+00:00
I don't think there are really enough details on the parent comment to judge it either way, but can't you at least see how weird it is that 'Women in STEM' is very accepted but a 'Men in STEM' program would never fly? Whether or not white men have hidden advantages over non white men (and I'm not saying that they don't! Simply that they are not clearly visible), it should be very clear that there are large non hidden advantages for non white / non male people, which is obviously going to foster discontent, whether or not they are actually at a disadvantage in the big picture.

As a similar example: my close Vietnamese friend met all of his best friends and girlfriend in college in VSA, a Vietnamese club. All of my non white friends went to 'Latinos in X' 'Asians in X' etc. clubs. There were no equivalents for me! I don't resent anybody for this (by dint of my personality I don't really care), and in truth it was probably good for my cold networking skills (perhaps widening the unseen advantage gap that I supposedly have even further), but I also think it's difficult to look at this and not understand why people are so discontent with DEI identity politics.
by ploxiln | 2025-10-28 00:38:44+00:00
A multitude of tiny dependencies has a multitude of solo maintainers, who eventually walk away, or sometimes get compromised.

A few big dependencies each have a team and a reputation that has earned trust and established release process and standards. If there's a serious problem in a small part of a big dependency, there are a few trusted maintainers of the big dependency who can be reached and can resolve it.

The theory of small dependencies was a good theory, 10 years ago when js devs using NPM started the trend of making them "as small as possible". But it really seems like the emergent pattern is the opposite of what is claimed. These JS and Rust projects end up taking longer to build and resulting in bigger outputs. Instead of a couple of "huge" 200KB dependencies, you end up with _thousands_ of 1KB dependencies including different versions and alternative implementations, you end up with megabytes of "accidental" code you don't really need.

And we can reason about why. In an ecosystem where something has 1 to 3 large deps, well sometimes a dependency pulls in another sub-dependency with code you don't need. But in an ecosystem where something has 10 to 100 deps, this still happens, but 50x more overall. It's a exponential trend: you have 3 big deps that each have 2 big deps that each have 1 big dep, vs you have 20 small deps that each have 15 small deps that each have 10 small deps.
by strken | 2025-10-28 00:38:55+00:00
I disagree. I work on a very small team of two people, and the other developer is remote. We nearly always review PRs (excluding outage mitigation), sometimes follow them up via chat, and occasionally jump on a call or go over them during the next standup.

Firstly, we get important benefits even when there's nothing to talk about: we get to see what the other person is working on, which stops us getting siloed or working alone. Secondly, we do leave useful feedback and often link to full articles explaining concepts, and this can be a good enough explanation for the PR author to just make the requested change. Thirdly, we escalate things to in-person discussion when appropriate, so we end up having the most valuable discussions anyway, which are around architecture, ongoing code style changes, and teaching/learning new things.

I don't understand how someone could think that async code review has almost zero value unless they worked somewhere with a culture of almost zero effort code reviews.
by triceratops | 2025-10-28 00:39:26+00:00
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_quality#Protein_source...

Lots of sources of complete protein on there besides beef. Don't limit yourself. A combination of quinoa, buckwheat, eggs, soy, pea, milk, whey, beans, and nuts will provide all the amino acids you need. Even beef, despite being a complete protein, is deficient in tryptophan.

I like meat. I'm not a militant vegetarian or vegan or anything like that. I dislike the laundering of people's love of eating meat as "essential for health", when it's anything but (special dietary needs aside). Eating meat is a mostly a choice.

I'll repeat again: varied diets are essential. A single protein source won't cut it. And most people get enough protein going just by raw numbers.
by dathinab | 2025-10-28 00:39:52+00:00
> Or better yet, just ditch timezones altogether.

that is quite a terrible idea IMHO (at least if done internationally)

sure they make international meetings/events harder, but for most people most of their live is bound to local time meanings even if you travel to another country. 7am is in the morning 7pm in the evening 11:59am is mid day etc. If you remove time zone then for some people 7am is morning for other it's mid day and for other noon. So creating a lot of issues for everyone just to make international remote meetings and events easier seems like a bad idea, not even considering the absurde level of practical issues a switch like that would cause for any country not around UTC+0. Even more so remote meetings and events normally involve software and and time zone confusions are very solvable there (display time dynamically in the time zone device currently displaying it (but with time zone suffix, and some considerations about storage wrt. changing time zones, also maybe add an option to display in home instead of current time zone)). Annoying is how few programs do that properly.
by dragonwriter | 2025-10-28 00:40:02+00:00
> but can't you at least see how weird it is that 'Women in STEM' is very accepted but a 'Men in STEM' program would never fly?

I can see how it might seem weird to an alien who knew what men and women were, but had no context for the existing state and history of society.

I can't see how it would seem weird to anyone else, however.
by falcor84 | 2025-10-28 00:40:18+00:00
Just to explain my brusque comment: the way I see it, civilization is populated with a large fraction of individuals whose intelligence or conscientiousness I wouldn't trust to mind my cactus, but that I'm ok with entrusting a lot more too because of the systems and processes offered by society at large.

As an example, knowing that a service is offered by a registered company with presence in my area gives me the knowledge "that they know that I know" that if something goes wrong, I can sue them for negligence, possibly up to piercing the corporate veil the company and having the directors serve prison time. From that I can somewhat rationally derive that if the company has been in business offer similar services for years, it is likely that they have processes in place to maintain a level of professionalism that would lower the risk of such lawsuits. And on an organisational level, even if I still have good reason to think that most of the employees are incompetent, the fact that the company is making it work gives me a significantly higher preference in the "result" than I would in any individual "stupid" component.

And for a closer-to-home example, the internet is well known to be a highly reliable system built from unreliable components.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-10-28 00:40:26+00:00
> An appeals court sided with the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, saying her role is to work with Congress. ... her post is part of the Library of Congress.

This could be just noise and theatrics, but I won't be surprised if SCOTUS invents another creative interpretation and allows the POTUS to do whatever he wants with the Library of Congress, then with Congress itself and... the sky is the limit.

Not that this particular Congress would even notice.
by stocksinsmocks | 2025-10-28 00:41:38+00:00
My take is more optimistic. This could be an off ramp to stop putting critical business workflows in spreadsheets. If people start to learn that general purpose programming languages are actually easier than Excel (and with LLMs, there is no barrier), then maybe more robust workflows and automation will be the norm.

I think the world would be a lot better off if excel weren’t in it. For example, I work at business with 50K+ employees where project management is done in a hellish spreadsheet literally one guy in Australia understands. Data entry errors can be anywhere and are incomprehensible. 3 or 4 versions are floating around to support old projects. A CRUD app with a web front end would solve it all. Yet it persists because Excel is erroneously seen as accessible whereas Rails, Django, or literally anything else is witchcraft.
by godelski | 2025-10-28 00:41:47+00:00
I think this is a different use case. The context we're talking about is building software. A GitHub action is really a script. Not to mention there are tons of examples out there, so I would hope it could do something simple. Vibe coding scripts isn't what people are typically concerned about.

> but I’m not a TS expert

Although this is ultimately related. How can you verify that it is working as intended? You admit to not having those skills. To clarify, I'm sure "it's working" but can you verify the "as intended" part? This is the hard part of any coding. Getting things working isn't trivial, but getting things working right takes a lot more time.

> So the most recent thing that I did

I'll share a recent thing I tried too...

I was working on a setup.py file and I knew I had done something small and dumb, but was being blind to it. So I pulled up claude code and had it run parallel to my hunt. Asked it to run the build command and search for the error. It got caught up in some cmake flags I was passing, erroneously calling them errors. I get a number of prompts in and they're all wrong. I fixed the code btw, it was a variable naming error (classic!).

I've also had success with claude, but it is super hit or miss. I've never gotten it to work well for anything remotely complicated if there also isn't the code in a popular repo I could just copy paste. But it is pretty hit or miss for even scripts, which I write a lot of bash. People keep telling me it is great for bash and honestly guys, just read the man pages... (and use some god damn functions!)
by MBCook | 2025-10-28 00:42:05+00:00
And I can find relatives/friends on Facebook to harass. Doesn’t make it ok.

Just like the fact we have agreed upon rules against using chemical weapons or attacking civilians in war (which some violate), the fact something is possible doesn’t mean society should accept it.

If we don’t have even the basic civility of not getting death threats over whatever minor thing someone on the internet is mad at, even mixing us up with their real target sharing our name, what’s left?

Everything becomes full force win at all costs, no matter how stupid or trivial. Who wants to live like that?
by DougWebb | 2025-10-28 00:42:09+00:00
> Just today, I spent an hour documenting a function that performs a set of complex scientific simulations. Defined the function input structure, the outputs, and put a bunch of references in the body to function calls it would use.

So that's... math. A very well defined problem, defined very well. Any decent programmer should be able to produce working software from that, and it's great that ChatGPT was able to help you get it done much faster than you could have done it yourself. That's also the kind of project that's very well suited for unit testing, because again: math. Functions with well defined inputs, outputs, and no side-effects.

Only a tiny subset of software development projects are like that though.
by rvz | 2025-10-28 00:42:48+00:00
> We will need to make sure the test cases are accurate and describe what the AI needs to generate, but that's it.

Yes. The first thing I always check in every project (an especially vibe-coded projects) is whether if:

A. Does it have tests?

B. Is the coverage over 70%?

C. Do the tests actually test for the behaviour of the code (good) or just its implementation (bad.)

If any of those requirements are missing, then that is a red flag for the project.

While TDD is absolutely valuable for clean code, focusing too much on it can be the death of a startup.

As you said the code itself is $0, then the first product is still worth $10 and the finished product is worth $1M+ once it makes money, which is what matters.
by tanin | 2025-10-28 00:43:08+00:00
The details I never really thought about until I encountered timezone issues was:

There are points in time that don't exist, and there are points in time that are ambiguous.

If we adjust the time forward by 1 hour, then then 2:30am doesn't exist. If we adjust time backward, then 2:30am is ambiguous.

2am-3am is only safe for certain countries.

America/Santiago (Chile), for example, adjusts their daylight saving on midnight. On a certain day, midnight doesn't exist because it immediately jumps to 1am. If you are building an analytics chart by day, you will encounter this issue. I wrote about several weird time zone edgecases here: https://tanin.nanakorn.com/edgecases-for-timezones/

To add more confusion, IIRC Java and Ruby handle these cases differently where Ruby raises exceptions (e.g. InvalidTime and AmbiguousTime) but Java doesn't.

I caused 3 incidents in a row at Stripe in my first month because of this. I thought I was gonna be fired. Luckily I wasn't...
by sophrosyne42 | 2025-10-28 00:43:28+00:00
The purpose of DEI is to enforce what is idealized as the equal outcome, assuming that all observed differences are the result of discrimination. The problem is that it has not been shown that all observed differences are the result of discrimination as opposed to preference, ability, or other uncontrollable factors not related to discrimination but which are reasonable bases for the difference. There are many cases where differences have been shown exist for reasons other than discrimination. The blanket approach of DEI essentially is a move back to medieval policies which afford certain groups special legal privileges.

We should be removing special privileges that can cause discrimination and not creating more, because a new special privilege can never reverse but will only compound the negative social effects of them.
by sarchertech | 2025-10-28 00:43:31+00:00
> Then, just wait a few months and then rerun the code generation with a new version of the AI and the code will be better.

How many times have you seen a code change that “passed all the tests” take down production or break an important customer’s workflow?

Usually that was just a relatively small change.

Now imagine that you regenerated literally all the code.

The code is the spec. Any other spec comprehensive enough to cover all possible functionality has to be at least as complex as the code.
by samsolomon | 2025-10-28 00:43:41+00:00
I think you're right, the roles will exist for some time. But I think we'll start to see more and more overlap between engineering, product management and design.

In a lot of ways I think that will lead to stronger delivery teams. As a designer—the best performing teams I've been on have individuals with a core competency, but a lot of overlap in other areas. Product managers with strong engineering instincts, engineers with strong design instincts, etc. When there is less ambiguity in communication, teams deliver better software.

Longer-term I'm unsure. Maybe there is some sort of fusion into all-purpose product people able to do everything?