MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by frumplestlatz | 2025-10-21 00:00:13+00:00
> First class IDE support (Xcode is not that).

The SourceKit LSP server has worked fine for me, although I admit I spend most time in Xcode.

> Better documentation.

What’s the issue here? The documentation seems comprehensive.

> The build system only half works. Better packaging.

What are the issues with SwiftPM?
by cogman10 | 2025-10-21 00:00:17+00:00
Well, they did half-heartedly try at it. Intel Phi was produced from 2010->2020.

I think the problem is that Intel pigeonholed the product, relegating it to just supercomputers. I also think Intel has historically done a bad job of supporting the software needed to power their hardware.

The reason CUDA was so successful (IMO) is because it was highly available and the software is a better quality to competitive software. OpenCL was supposed to be the answer to CUDA and ultimately it was just a weird, hard to work with, and minimally supported language.

I don't think that's all Intel's fault. Apple's dumb war against Khronos has really undermined a lot of progress for anyone doing GPGPU programming.
by alsetmusic | 2025-10-21 00:00:26+00:00
Sorry to reply to a days old thread, but if you haven't seen the reporting on openly-fascist groups like Patriot Front and openly-nazi groups carrying swastika flags in marches (in the USA for both examples), you're likely only getting a very biased news feed. Or the Terrorgram extremist online group trying to recruit kids on Roblox. Or the openly white-nationalist guys starting "youth clubs" that are like gyms and scouts trying to recruit kids.

I'm plugged into a lot of media that isn't typical USA pablum, so I learn a lot about extremists. But the first two examples get play in mainstream news media and even the others appear on non-fringe (just not mainstream) sources, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and such.
by dotnet00 | 2025-10-21 00:00:31+00:00
The comment I replied to was dismissing a research paper describing innovation from a chinese company wrt more effective use of their hardware, by insinuating that it must be propaganda with no supporting reasoning.

Of course China has copied foreign technologies, I didn't say they haven't. My point is that you guys love to hang on to that as an excuse to dismiss everything from China even when they're obviously plenty capable of doing R&D in many fields, even with it having gotten its start off "stolen" IP.

America "stole" plenty of rocket technology from Germany, yet it's well understood that they eventually innovated on it and made it their own. But somehow whenever China's involved, you guys come out with your unsubtle bigotry.
by api | 2025-10-21 00:00:55+00:00
I 100% agree about GW Bush. I think he’s the worst president of the last 100 years at least. He’s worse than Trump because he created the conditions for a Trump.

If Trump actually becomes dictator I still might not revise that, since again: none of this would have happened without the damage Bush did.

I also have a lower opinion of Clinton these days. I think he just got handed the most “easy mode” presidency since WWII. A brick could have had a great presidency in the 90s.

The greatest mistake of Bush Sr and Clinton was not going into the former USSR with a Marshall plan rebuild. Instead we let it languish and be looted by “shock doctrine” creeps and then looted again by home grown creeps. If we’d done that Russia might be like Germany and Japan.

Obama was IMO a better smarter less corrupt Clinton. Had he been elected in 1992 he would have been amazing. His problem was that he was elected in 2008 and governed like it was 1992. He was handed the keys to a burning house which he then remodeled with a nice new bathroom and kitchen.
by lifeisstillgood | 2025-10-21 00:02:33+00:00
For me the lesson is not something that happened years ago, but that all to often a system that “ought” to work is handcapped by not accepting it cannot work as stated - there just was not enough computing power to send PINS to a central computer to verify and lookup, so you store the pin on the card. Then you don’t salt it with the account number, you just encrypt my pin with the same key as your pin. And both encrypted values are in the open. Swap my pin onto your stripe and I then can withdraw from your account.

The fix? Not sure. I think there is a lot more to the story than I know - but the problem is I’m not sure anyone knows

And using it “in the public interest” Is just bollocks

I think this is why OSS matters - if this scheme was published no-one would have trusted it. And queues at banks would have got longer.

Would that matter?
by debian3 | 2025-10-21 00:02:50+00:00
You learn pretty quick. Like CPU I don’t alert on it, I do on load average which is more realistic. I’m also solo dev, so I do it on the 15min avg and it need to be above a pretty high threshold 3 times in a row. I don’t monitor ram usage, but swap instead. When it trigger it usually something need to be fixed.

Also check for a monitoring solution with quorum, that way you don’t get bothered by false positives because of a peering issue between your monitoring location and your app (which you have no control over).
by kelseyfrog | 2025-10-21 00:03:38+00:00
Then why do people like the author get disappointed when they find out AI made something and not a human? If that theory was true, then they wouldn't be disappointed.

More humorously, the argument you're making is a pseudoscientific basis to bolster a belief in essentialism. It's extremely easy to see that because my neural circuits are mirroring yours and telling me that is the case.
by nneonneo | 2025-10-21 00:03:46+00:00
Better yet - ChatGPT didn't actually decode the blob accurately.

It nails the URL, but manages somehow to get the temporary filename completely wrong (the actual filename is /tmp/pjKmMUFEYv8AlfKR, but ChatGPT says /tmp/lRghl71wClxAGs).

It's possible the screenshot is from a different payload, but I'm more inclined to believe that ChatGPT just squinted and made up a plausible /tmp/ filename.

In this case it doesn't matter what the filename is, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where it did (e.g. it was a key to unlock the malware, an actually relevant filename, etc.).
by Arainach | 2025-10-21 00:03:47+00:00
Correct, but again this is one of the things LLMs are consistently good at and an actual time saver.

I'm very much an AI skeptic, but it's undeniable that LLMs have obsoleted 30 years worth of bash scripting knowledge - any time I think "I could take 5min and write that" an LLM can do it in under 30 seconds and adds a lot more input validation checks than I would in 5min. It also gets the regex right the first time, which is better than my grug brain for anything non-trivial.
by president_zippy | 2025-10-21 00:03:55+00:00
As a shareholder, thanks for going the convertible debt route! I like the fact that the company became profitable but the call option component of the previous round of "senior convertible notes" expired out of the money.

Comparatively speaking, I don't know why investors won't touch DOCN with a 10-foot pole, but I will gleefully reap my returns from dividends and stock buybacks when DOCN laps AWS in 20 years with better services maintained by better engineering staff.
by spartanatreyu | 2025-10-21 00:04:00+00:00
> Isn't analysing and writing bits of code one of the few things LLMs are actually good at and useful for

Absolutely not.

I just wasted 4 hours trying to debug an issue because a developer decided they would shortcut things and use an LLM to add just one more feature to an existing project. The LLM had changed the code in a non-obvious way to refer to things by ID, but the data source doesn't have IDs in it which broke everything.

I had to instrument everything to find where the problem actually was.

As soon as I saw it was referring to things that don't exist I realised it was created by an LLM instead of a developer.

LLMs can only create convincing looking code. They don't actually understand what they are writing, they are just mimicking what they've seen before.

If they did have the capacity to understand, I wouldn't have lost those 4 hours debugging its approximation of code.

Now I'm trying to figure out if I should hash each chunk of data into an ID and bolt it onto the data chunk, or if I should just rip out the feature and make it myself.
by otterley | 2025-10-21 00:04:24+00:00
Before y'all go nuts with the criticisms...

"Yes, we built a message broker using nothing but UNIX signals and a bit of Ruby magic. Sure, it’s not production-ready, and you definitely shouldn’t use this in your next startup (please don’t), but that was never the point.

"The real takeaway here isn’t the broker itself: it’s understanding how the fundamentals work. We explored binary operations, UNIX signals, and IPC in a hands-on way that most people never bother with.

"We took something “useless” and made it work, just for fun. So next time someone asks you about message brokers, you can casually mention that you once built (or saw) one using just two signals. And if they look at you weird, well, that’s their problem. Now go build something equally useless and amazing. The world needs more hackers who experiment just for the fun of it."
by cipherself | 2025-10-21 00:04:32+00:00
I am working on search but rather for text-to-image retrieval, nevertheless, I am curious if by that's all baked into Azure AI search you also meant synthetic query generation from the grandparent comment. If so, what's your latency for this? And do you extract structured data from the query? If so, do you use LLMs for that?

Moreover I am curious why you guys use bm25 over SPLADE?
by jrk | 2025-10-21 00:04:54+00:00
This is an established, though advanced, idea.

Sourcegraph Amp (https://sourcegraph.com/amp) has had this exact feature built in for quite a while: "ask the oracle" triggered an O1 Pro sub-agent (now, I believe, GPT-5 High), and searching can be delegated to cheaper, faster, longer-context sub-agents based on Gemini 2.5 Flash.
by dangus | 2025-10-21 00:06:45+00:00
This is tame and not scary compared to the kinds of real live human social engineering scams I’ve seen especially targeting senior leaders. With those scams there’s a budget for real human scammers.

This thing was a very obvious scam almost immediately. What real customer provides a screenshot with Google sites, captcha, and then asking you to run a terminal program?

Most non-technical users wouldn’t even fall for this because they’d be immediately be scared away with the command line aspect of it.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-10-21 00:06:50+00:00
> Foreign property buyers invested close to $140 billion into office towers, warehouses, shopping malls and data centers in China in the last 15 years, according to data compiled by MSCI Real Capital Analytics. Investors thought they would profit from a long-lasting surge in demand from businesses looking for space, but that turned out to be a miscalculation. An unprecedented supply glut is causing rents to fall and values of many properties to tumble, in some cases to below prices seen a decade ago.

Some of the foreign buyers are mentioned by name in the article (BlackRock, Carlyle Group). HSBC Holdings Plc and Standard Chartered Plc are mentioned as having debt exposure as lenders.
by tkuraku | 2025-10-21 00:06:58+00:00
My son has a peanut allergy. He was deemed very severe. He started treatment daily peanut doses. Starting at 5 mg. He is now eating 4 peanuts a day and counting. Zero issues with exposure now. If you have a kid with a peanut allergy find an allergist who will desensitize them.see https://www.palforzia.com/
by antod | 2025-10-21 00:07:18+00:00
Was that from actual experts, or bad faith strawman coverage (plenty of that about).

At least in my country, there was sober objective coverage from experts about their purpose and percentage effectiveness at reducing the range and spread of potentially infected droplets. Masks were somewhat effective for filtering incoming droplets, but most effective at containing outgoing droplets. The smaller the viral load you were exposed to the lower your chances of getting infected. Experts never claimed them to be 100% though, it was about reducing transmission rates not absolute protection.

Which is the main reason they're used in surgery too coincidentally (they aren't primarily for the surgeon's protection). Or is that an even longer running conspiracy?
by fragmede | 2025-10-21 00:07:19+00:00
> We don’t understand LLMs either. We built them, but we can’t explain why they work.

Just because you don't mean no one does. It's a pile of math. Somewhere along the way, something happened to get where we are, but looking at Golden Gate Claude, and the abliteration of shared models, or reading OpenAI's paper about hallucinations, there's a lot of detail and knowledge about how these things works that isn't instantly accessible and readily apparent to everyone on the Internet. As laymen all we can do is black box testing, but there's some really interesting stuff going on to edit the models and get them to talk like pirate.

The human brain is very much an unknowable squishy box because putting probes into it would be harmful to the person who's brain it is we're working on, and we don't like to do that to people because people are irreplaceable. We don't have that problem with LLMs. It's entirely possible to look at the memory register at location x at time y, and correspond that to a particular tensor which corresponds to a particular token which then corresponds to a particular word for us humans to understand. If you want to understand LLMs, start looking! It's an active area of research and is very interesting!
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-10-21 00:07:24+00:00
Most companies I've worked for (and have heard about from others) have either lacked the knowledge, or the will, to evaluate risk. They build things until they "just work", and their thought process ends there. They don't examine the design to identify its reliability and security risks. They don't calculate the losses. They still have issues, but they just happen to be acceptable most of the time.

Example1: A company's infra goes down, but it doesn't come back up correctly. People run around trying to get it working again. It takes much longer than they hoped/expected, and they lose a lot more money than they expected. This is because they never really understood the risk they were exposed to. If they understood it, they would have done more ahead of time to mitigate that much risk.

(today's outage is this case. A lot of companies are going to lose money after today, because their customers are not happy with these "acceptable risks". Presumably, losing this much money due to one outage will not be an acceptable risk in hindsight. So the company either didn't understand its risk, or it did but was too stupid to prevent it)

Example 2: A company gets hacked, and its data is either exposed or wiped. This is a much worse result; they can lose tons of money, chase off customers, damage their brand, open them up to lawsuits and fines, even tank the whole company. It's clear that this risk is pretty unacceptable. But it keeps happening. And the reason usually isn't "some genius hacker"; it was a lack of understanding the risk of not investing in security.

(there's tons of examples of these in the news. presumably, not investing in security was not an acceptable risk in hindsight when it ended their business! almost always, the people involved in making these products don't know enough about security to understand the risks. but they also don't invest in security training, mandatory security controls, checklists, processes, quality gates, etc)

You don't need multi-region or multi-cloud to mitigate reliability risks. Just like you don't need to hire a big security team or invest tons of cash to mitigate security risks. You can use your existing infra and tools, and mitigate both issues. You just have to use them wisely. It takes some effort and time, but you do it once and it pays dividends indefinitely.

Building something without identifying its security/reliability risks, and then not calculating those risks' impact, is not acceptable risk; it's ignored risk. Is tanking your company and shedding customers an acceptable risk? Well, there's one way to find out.
by foxfired | 2025-10-21 00:07:45+00:00
This isn't just enshittification, it's hostile software [0]. When you dominate a space, for example being the only vendor in the stadium, you can impose whatever you want on customers. There are no options, you can tell customers to select between yes or ok, this is the only way to pay for hotdogs now. As an LA resident, the rate at which we implement these broken and invasive services is alarming.

[0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/hostile-not-enshittification
by michaelt | 2025-10-21 00:08:42+00:00
> Is 75 minutes really considered that long of a time? [...] When I worked on firmware we frequently spent _weeks_ trying to diagnose what part of the firmware was broken.

One might spend weeks diagnosing a problem if the problem only happens 0.01% of the time, correlated with nothing, goes away when retried, and nobody can reproduce it in a test environment.

But 0.01%-and-it-goes-away-when-retried does not make a high priority incident. High priority incidents tend to be repeatable problems that weren't there an hour ago.

Generally a well designed, properly resourced business critical system will be simple enough and well enough monitored that problems can be diagnosed in a good deal less than 75 minutes - even if rolling out a full fix takes longer.

Of course, I don't know how common well designed, properly resourced business critical systems are.
by alephnerd | 2025-10-21 00:08:43+00:00
It's high value but low margins work. It played a major role into why Intel began offshoring a large portion of it's fab work abroad back in the 1990s-2000s, and also why TSMC became a player in the space undercutting Japanese, Korean, Singapore, and Malaysian/American (Intel) vendors.

> TSMC is known for overpaying

Never heard that in my life. Underpay sure.
by acangiano | 2025-10-21 00:08:44+00:00
I use both but I agree that they are generally not on par. I find Claude Code does a better job and doesn't overengineer as much. Where sometime Codex does better is in debugging a tough bug that stumps Claude Code. Codex is also more likely to get lazy and claiming to have finished a large task, when it reality it just wrote some placeholder lines. Claude has never done that. They might be on par soon, however, and I think Anthropic is playing a dangerous game with their limit enforcement on people who are on subscriptions.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-10-21 00:09:02+00:00
I wouldn't say that's fair. MPX failed because it was a very problematic solution to this problem.

MPX had a large (greater than 15-20%) overhead and was brittle. It didn't play well with other x86 instructions and the developer experience was extremely poor (common C and C++ design patterns would cause memory faults with MPX).

Apple MIE (which is essentially ARM MTE v2) and MTE on the other hand have near invisible levels of overhead (~5-10%) with the ability to alternate between synchronous and asynchronous tracing of faults where the latter has a much lower overhead than the former (allowing you to check in production for very little overhead and get better debugging in test). They also work essentially seamlessly with the rest of the ARM ecosystem and it takes very little to integrate the functionality into any language ecosystem or toolchain.

If MPX was comparable with MTE, it certainly would have gotten the adoption that MTE is getting but the "tech" just wasn't there to justify it's use.
by mmonaghan | 2025-10-21 00:09:20+00:00
Ehh I trust the reporting and generally agree that RTO was/is executed hamfisted but I dunno if this particular incident "makes" the narrative. IIRC LSE rate has been increasing for many years, maybe most of AWS's existence. This is part and parcel of building something so complex that continues to grow and evolve.

I do expect much better of them and they certainly have problems to solve but this is a big company evolution thing and not an Amazon-specific thing imo.
by nl | 2025-10-21 00:09:29+00:00
It's a badly researched article too.

> OpenAI is going to generate $3.6 billion in revenue this year, but the costs will lead to a loss of more than $5 billion.

We know that actually:

> OpenAI generated around $4.3 billion in revenue in the first half of 2025... OpenAI said it burned $2.5 billion

> OpenAI looks to meet its full-year revenue target of $13 billion and a cash-burn target of $8.5 billion, the report added.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/openais-first-half-revenu...
by lukeschlather | 2025-10-21 00:09:54+00:00
Running it through ChatGPT and asking for its thoughts is a free action. Base64 decoding something that I know to be malicious code that's trying to execute on my machine, that's worrisome. I may do it eventually, but it's not the first thing I would like to do. Really I would prefer not to base64 decode that payload at all, if someone who can't accidentally execute malicious code could do it, that sounds preferable.

Maybe ChatGPT can execute malicious code but that also seems less likely to be my problem.
by throwaway894345 | 2025-10-21 00:10:28+00:00
> And sure, you can use S3/Dynamo/Aurora from an EC2 box, but what would be the point of that?

An easy API? Easy replication / failover / backups? I would absolutely use S3 even with EC2.

> IAM, on the other hand, can die in dumpster fire.

I’m no great fan of AWS’s approach to IAM, but much of the pain is just the nature of fine-grained / least-privilege permissioning. On EC2 it’s more common to just grant broader permissions; IAM makes you think about least privilege, but you absolutely can grant admin for everything. And as far as a permissioning API goes, IAM is much cleaner/saner than Linux permissions.
by throwaway0123_5 | 2025-10-21 00:13:21+00:00
Is the suggestion that AGI (or even current AI) lowers the barrier of entry to making a company so much that regular people can just create a company in order to make money (and then buy food/shelter)? If so, I think there's a lot of problems with that:

1) It doesn't solve the problem of obtaining physical capital. So you're basically limited to just software companies.

2) If the barrier to entry to creating a software product that can form the basis of a company is so low that a single person can do it, why would other companies (the ones with money and physical capital) buy your product instead of just telling their GPT-N to create them the same software?

3) Every other newly-unemployed person is going to have the same idea. Having everyone be a solo-founder of a software company really doesn't seem viable, even if we grant that it could be viable for a single person in a world where everyone has a GPT-N that can easily replicate the company's software.

On a side note, one niche where I think a relatively small number of AI-enabled solo founders will do exceptionally well is in video games. How well a video game will do depends a lot on how fun it is to humans and the taste of the designer. I'm suspicious that AIs will have good taste in video game design and even if they do I think it would be tough for them to evaluate how fun mechanics would be for a person.