MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by willyxdjazz | 2025-10-18 10:31:29+00:00
You are right, I thought maybe something interesting in these debates is more education about how an LLM works. I don’t like calling it artificial intelligence because precisely we don’t understand well what “intelligence” is. What we do understand is how we came to build an LLM. Good point, I will keep that in mind for next time; it’s better to give more details and, above all, remove the “no” from assertions and clarify more. Thanks :)
Show HN: FlowDeck – iOS/macOS dev tools for Cursor (stop alt-tabbing to Xcode)
by afterxleep | 2025-10-18 10:34:23+00:00
Creator here.

If you're building iOS apps with Claude/Cursor, you know the pain: generate code in 30 seconds, switch to Xcode, wait for indexing, build, test, switch back. Do this 15 times an hour.

FlowDeck puts Swift IntelliSense, building, testing, and debugging directly in Cursor/VSCode. No more context switching.

In beta right now - everything's unlocked. Want feedback from iOS devs actually using AI tools to write code.

Main question: does this solve a real problem or is it just me who's annoyed by the Xcode dance?

Technical details and link on the site.
by tgv | 2025-10-18 10:34:57+00:00
Many of those instruments are based on 40 to 50 year old designs. They've released products that were simply not in the market anymore, or second-hand at exorbitant prices. That's not parasitic. Their production processes might not stand up to scrutiny, though.

> If anything smaller players are now extremely careful to open source stuff exactly because of them.

That's the problem with all open source. If you open source something good, someone else is going to run with it.
by scrubs | 2025-10-18 10:35:10+00:00
Oh c'mon. Blame it on Washington is no answer.

When political bs starts into enginerring institutions my suspects are:

- companies have too much money to burn

- company organizational maturity has cratered focusing too much on outside noise

- boards have become lost / distracted ... line engineers, tls, middle level engineers who actually get things done don't have the luxury of being pretty boys on tv talking ** or meeting lobbyists and expensive steak places on the company dime

- eventual customer dissatisfaction and financial stress to come

- corporate boards if they had any brains would keep moat between them and Washington

- getting / controlling business on the cheap through gov hook ups ... is what? Were we supposed to applaud the flex there?
by password54321 | 2025-10-18 10:37:32+00:00
You know LLMs are regurgitating when they will contradict their statements just by clicking 'redo' on a prompt. I doubt if you were the ask the same question that they would suddenly say the complete opposite of what they just said.

Comparing LLMs trained on reddit comments and people who learn to speak as a byproduct of actually interacting with people and the world is nuts.
by theideaofcoffee | 2025-10-18 10:38:37+00:00
Yes, I’m sure the original comment had unpaved surfaces, for example, in mind when they wrote that, and not heavily traveled corridors shared by all types, like I-5, or something like the stretch of I-95 between Philly and NYC, one of the busiest sections of roads in the US.

Versus the situation with dirt and gravel. Such a huge percentage of highway miles driven in proportion on gravel and dirt, everyone going to work and back home on gravel, yep.

EVs do cause more damage than most ICE by virtue of being heavier. But you know what causes even more damage? Heavy commercial vehicles. The overall proportion of damage is still vastly outweighed (heh) by a single heavy vehicle. Multiplied by thousands upon thousands of heavy semis day after day after day. The proportional amount is insignificant.

Source: a pavement engineer in my circle.

And I’d take issue with your point about surfaces that semis can’t drive on, even once. Which are those? Dirt mining and logging roads that one might immediately reach for? Those are traveled by loaded semis already. Worn paths in fields? Already driven by loaded grain trailers, but they’re only used a few times per year. Source for that: I grew up on farms during harvest time. Perhaps quaint covered wood bridges over creeks in the middle of nowhere? Oh, I know! Those rope bridges over rivers in Peru, I know I’m itching to drive my new Peterbilt over that.

I don’t know why I waste my time refuting contrarian “nuh-uh!” comments that are posted just for the sake of being contrarian. It’s like the only thing posted here.
by elenaoglinda | 2025-10-18 10:39:25+00:00
Hey,

I'm building an AI-powered investment analysis platform for investors who want to understand why a stock moves, not just whether it will go up or down. It combines advanced AI models with time-tested investing principles.

I'm looking to onboard testers and a user base that is not just made up of my friends and family.

Are there communities that I can tap in right away?
by edm0nd | 2025-10-18 10:39:37+00:00
>Also chinese companies innovate better and have more efficient supply chains that western ones.

Yeah because they just steal and copy everything from Western companies and others worldwide. Why spend hundreds of millions and 10 years doing R&D when you can just hack in and steal it? It's the Chinese way.

Chinese hackers took trillions in intellectual property from about 30 multinational companies

- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinese-hackers-took-trillions-...

The annual cost to the U.S. economy of counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets is between $225 billion and $600 billion.

China is the world’s principal infringer of intellectual property, and it uses its laws and regulations to put foreign companies at a disadvantage and its own companies at an advantage.

- https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/china-exec-summary-risk-...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_intellectual_pr...

Salt Typhoon is an advanced persistent threat actor believed to be operated by China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) which has conducted high-profile cyber espionage campaigns, particularly against the United States.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Typhoon

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora

Industrial espionage: How China sneaks out America's technology secrets

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950

etc etc etc
by thomas_witt | 2025-10-18 10:40:44+00:00
I never understood the Behringer hate of the "Pro Audio" community; apparently there are many riders (requirement documents for live shows) which state "No Behringer".

I got a Behringer WING a couple of years ago, and I couldn't be happier for my home studio: Excellent connection with Midas stage boxes who have (at least for my requirements) great pre-amps, you can basically route everything, it's kind of intuitive, the possibilities are endless, it's at the same time a 32-channel USB Audio Interface which works great with Logic, I can even live-stream multi channel audio to my Mac in the other room to Logic using the DANTE card, it has easy live recording with SD cards, remote control via iPad and even 3rd party apps with APIs, etc. etc. etc. … And they just released a rack and smaller version of it, but didn't cut on the features.

As we say in Germany, maybe it's some kind of "What the farmer doesn't know, he won't eat" syndrome. From what I know and use, I am a big fan of Behringer, and especially the WING.
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-18 10:42:22+00:00
Codex (GPT-5) + Rust (with or without Tokio) seems to work out well for me, asking it to run the program and validate everything as it iterates on a solution. I've used the same workflow with Python programs too and seems to work OK, but not as well as with Rust.

Just for curiosities sake, what language have you been trying to use?
by chao- | 2025-10-18 10:43:50+00:00
The "aesthetically pleasing" aspect of blocks is not mutually exclusive with real, first-class functions! Ruby is really more functional than that. Ruby has both lambas and method objects (pulled from instances). For example, you can write:

let isLarge = a => a>100;

as a lambda and call via #call or the shorthand syntax .():

is_large = ->(a) { a > 100 } is_large.call(1000) # => true is_large.(1000) # => true

I find the .() syntax a bit odd, so I prefer #call, but that's a personal choice. Either way, it mixes-and-matches nicely with any class that has a #call method, and so it allows nice polymorphic mixtures of lambdas and of objects/instances that have a method named 'call'. Also very useful for injecting behavior (and mocking behavior in tests).

Additionally, you can even take a reference to a method off of an object, and pass them around as though they are a callable lambda/block:

class Foo def bar = 'baz' end foo_instance = Foo.new callable_bar = foo_instance.method(:bar) callable_bar.call # => 'baz'

This ability to pull a method off is useful because any method which receives block can also take a "method object" and be passed to any block-receiving method via the "block operator" of '&' (example here is passing an object's method to Array#map as a block):

class UpcaseCertainLetters def initialize(letters_to_upcase) @letters_to_upcase = letters_to_upcase end def format(str) str.chars.map do |char| @letters_to_upcase.include?(char) ? char.upcase : char end.join end end upcase_vowels = UpcaseCertainLetters.new("aeiuo").method(:format) ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'].map(&upcase_vowels) # => ['fOO', 'bAr', 'bAz']

This '&' operator is the same as the one that lets you call instance methods by converting a symbol of a method name into a block for an instance method on an object:

(0..10).map(&:even?) # => [true, false, true, false, true, false, true, false, true, false, true]

And doing similar, but with a lambda:

is_div_five = ->(num) { num % 5 == 0 } (0..10).map(&is_div_five) # => [true, false, false, false, false, true, false, false, false, false, true]
by the_gipsy | 2025-10-18 10:46:37+00:00
When everything is an expression, like rust (I think), that's enough. Most of the control flow are used as statements, but if needed, they can be used directly as expression, and you get basically all the advantages. After seeing how effective this is, using a language that doesn't have this feature can be really annoying.

On the other hand, I would like to explore "when arithmetics is just a function". I think Elm does this well: operators are just functions with two arguments that can be written as "1 + 2", the familiar way, or "(+) 1 2". Then you can compose it like "map ((+) 2)" (currying) so you get a function that adds 2 to every item of a list, and so on.
by dalyons | 2025-10-18 10:47:36+00:00
My ice car _could_ spontaneously catch fire and be totaled, that would be an unknown large expense. But people (rightfully) don’t factor that into buying cars because it’s an infrequent fault. Same with this fear of spontaneous battery failure.

Saying that actually makes me wonder - surely insurance would cover a random battery failure fault, in the same way as an engine fire? I dont know if it does but it feels intuitively like it should.
by aw1621107 | 2025-10-18 10:48:25+00:00
Again, I'm looking for decisions specifically made with formal verification in mind (e.g., "we made this decision specifically because it would be useful for formal verification"), not just decisions that are usable for validation but whose reasoning did not specifically consider the possibility of formal verification. Barely anything in those quotes even starts to address that, let alone provide any detail on how.

Link [2] does not seem to have any directly relevant bits based on a quick search. There is a short section which seems potentially relevant, but that work was not officially adopted and it's unclear to what extent it influenced Ada 83, especially since some of that work extended through 1987. I'm also not entirely sure how on point it is; unfortunately, it lacks the detail needed for me to tell for sure.

Link [3] is not directly relevant since it concerns Ada 95, whereas my initial comment was specifically about Ada 83. In addition, it doesn't really say anything on its own; it's basically an index of other documents, and I'm not currently well-equipped to go trawling through them for relevant quotes.

The last paragraph is not relevant because I'm looking for information on design decisions. A guide on how to use a language covers a very different subject matter.

I'm not even sure why I am the one doing the digging, really...
by chrisldgk | 2025-10-18 10:49:54+00:00
For the German HN readers, there’s a really good podcast with some investigative journalism about this exact topic made by the public broadcast services: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/episode/urn:ard:episode:305aa362...

I don’t believe there’s an English translation sadly, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
by WJW | 2025-10-18 10:49:54+00:00
Perhaps I've been doing Ruby for too long, but it's still not that weird to me. The quantity "5" is very abstract without anything to have "5" of. That is why "5.days" and "5.times" exist, among others. Mathematically it makes just as much sense to start with the amount and add the unit later than it does to start with the unit and add the amount later (ie like `time_to_wait = SECONDS_IN_A_DAY * 5` as you might do in some other languages).
by beaker52 | 2025-10-18 10:51:01+00:00
Which part is in violation of the age discrimination laws here, the fact that k-sortable uuids divulge the information, or the fact someone is using them to discriminate against a candidate?

If it’s the latter (which, reading wikipedias summary suggests it is), then the entire premise that k-sortable uuids are a “HR violation” is bunk.

The problem with arguing about timestamps leaking this kind of information is that _anything_ can leak this kind of vaguely dated information.

- Seen on a website that ceased to exist after 2010? Gotchya!

- Indexed by Waybackmachine? Gotchya!

- Used <different uuid scheme> for records created before 2022? Gotchya!

The only way to prevent divulging temporal clues about an entity is to never reveal its existence in any kind of correlatable way (which, as far as I’m prepared to think right now, seems to defeat the point of revealing it to a UI at all).
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-18 10:51:25+00:00
You just haven't added the right tool together with the right system/developer prompt. Add a `add_memory` and `list_memory` (or automatically inject the right memories for the right prompts/LLM responses) and you have something that can learn.

You can also take it a step further and add automatic fine-tuning once you start gathering a ton of data, which will rewire the model somewhat.
by kachapopopow | 2025-10-18 10:53:40+00:00
for me I don't understand codex the same way I don't understand gemini.

In my day to day tasks the only models that actually do what I want are the antrophic ones all other ones just fall flat on their face most of the time and end up creating more work than antrophic models.

I wonder if it's because I tend to abuse my models and constantly tell them that they're stupid
by phiresky | 2025-10-18 10:54:18+00:00
I disagree, you can always spend one or two sentences at the top to immediately bring everyone to a good starting point, regardless of how much technical depth the rest of the article has.

For example in this case: "eBPF is a method for user space to add code to the running Linux kernel without compromising security. They have been tied [...]. The GNU toolchain, the historical and still by many preferred system to build Linux currently has no support.

The description of what LWN and Linux is would be in the about page linked in the article.

It costs almost nothing for an expert to skim/skip two sentences while saving loads of time for everyone else.

The article is also completely missing motivation (why do we care whether BPF is supported in the second toolchain?) Which would be helpful for almost everyone, including people who think it is obvious.

Edit: To be clear though, I love LWN. But the articles are very often missing important context that would be easy to add that I suspect would help a large portion of the reader base.
by rightbyte | 2025-10-18 10:56:53+00:00
Sure I am might have been a wee bit too bitter writing that.

The point I want to make is that allowing remote code execution is such a big attack surface that it makes all the other security measures look silly, which indicates that signed execution contexts in them self is an attack on privacy and control etc.

If there was any actual security concerns there could be a push for server side rendering or something.
by ck45 | 2025-10-18 10:56:57+00:00
But then Ruby only goes half way, not unlike the "watered-down form" in your term. Why is `#times` a method of Integer, but `#if` (or `#ifTrue`) not a method of booleans like in Smalltalk? Ruby does the same cherry picking from Smalltalk like everybody else, just different cherries. When looking at Ruby, it feels like the simple examples are all nice and clean but then the weird details start to appear and the language feels more hacky than others (like Ned Flander's house in Simpsons S08E08).
by ZeroGravitas | 2025-10-18 10:57:20+00:00
One of the sources cited in this article says that at 70% battery health EVs are useless and need replaced.

It seems to be a common misconception, maybe based on the limits set for warranty repairs and then a weird logical leap.

Even early EVs that didn't have great range to start with are still useful to someone when range is lower. To make a blanket statement that all 10 year old EVs are useless seems like motivated reasoning.
by 7oi | 2025-10-18 10:57:32+00:00
These news are of course good, but they sure bring up conflicting feelings in me. I mean, they should open source just about anything, seeing how they have unapologetically used other peoples designs as “inspiration” for their gear for decades for their own benefit. Sure, it has resulted in a lot of more affordable gear (I mean, super savings on development costs) and I really appreciate that, but it’s also at a cost. Innovators in the business get less business when there are cheaper devices “inspired” by theirs on the market, resulting in less funding for future innovations to inspire future Behringer gear. Then, of course, the whole Behringer vs Peter Kirn thing was just something that has left a permanent distaste in my mouth whenever I hear or see the name Behringer.

But I get it. Like someone commented here, the do seem like a sort of Robin Hood in the music gear world (although its not always just products from big companies that “inspire” Behringer products), making these expensive pieces of gear much more approachable for enthusiasts on a budget. Approachability is good and I love the idea of it. I just really wish it didn’t have to be at someone else's expense.
by Normal_gaussian | 2025-10-18 10:59:13+00:00
To expand on this - Evri, DPD, and my Postie all come regularly to the door and are the same person nearly every time for me - and have been for years. Amazon, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. are irregular and often different people.

Then the leaflet drop guys are maybe three different people.

Then there is food delivery, which is rare (because we rarely order) bit still another group of people.

Oh and then there are the Jehovah's witnesses.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-10-18 11:01:59+00:00
3475 Deer Creek Rd is leased by SAP AppHaus[0]. There are so many PHB bizwords on the website, I pretty much feel asleep trying to figure out if they did anything real or if it's well-meaning MBAs who sold their bosses on the wantrepreneur cargo cult fashion of renting expensive property in Palo Alto.

Interestingly, Apple re-leased the W SJ Triangle Building they used to occupy in the 80's & 90's that had a giant vintage rainbow Apple logo facing I-280. It has had a history of short-term occupancy post-Apple with Accolade (games) and various other tenants over the decades.

Mega rich tech areas ought to reinvest in the future by launching teaching venues and community-focused employee-/member-owned co-op sw/hw hackspaces-library-event-makespaces if they really want to attract people who aren't interested in, are put-off, or can't afford corporate-focused/-gatekept "innovation centers". Co-working space is so commodified, it needs to be local and special rather than transactional to draw people. There is/was a church (Spark perhaps) in Palo Alto that had quite a large coworking space, and the folks there were really cool.

0. https://apphaus.sap.com/network/palo-alto
by EarthIsHome | 2025-10-18 11:02:58+00:00
If you like quartz watches that expose their circuitry, you'll definitely enjoy some of Accutron's watches: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/introducing-accutron-314

While usually not on display, the quartz movements of Grand Seikos are beautifully finished:

* https://i.imgur.com/sJXfmg1.jpeg

* https://i.imgur.com/BucSW15.jpeg

* https://i.imgur.com/xVd04BM.jpeg

* https://i.imgur.com/wuRSif1.jpeg
by CaptainOfCoit | 2025-10-18 11:05:30+00:00
Generally, businesses that try to thrive only on "take existing designs, produce them cheaper, try to out-compete on price only while not adding new R&D to the world" are businesses I try to avoid, as I feel like it'll only introduce a race to the bottom, instead of bringing new exciting stuff into the world.

This is regardless of the sector/industry, so I'll continue buying from brands that create new things, rather than from brands that iterate on existing stuff.

But with that said, it's a trite discussion, and I despise the constant "Behringer is the cheapest" or "Behringer just steals" conversations that happen every time Behringer is mentioned, more than I despise Behringer itself.
by fmobus | 2025-10-18 11:07:47+00:00
Sure, but that still takes engineering. Extracting information and intelligence out of the data is not just throwing AI into a pile of data, it's real engineering that will always required months of design, experiments, computing and storage capacity planning, releases, maintenance, operations, etc.

That leaves a huge internal paper trail - the kind of thing that shows up during discovery in a lawsuit.

No, companies like that are not doing this kind of shit, it's not worth it.
by lurk2 | 2025-10-18 11:09:00+00:00
> What stops people from setting up and aging (or buying) sockpuppet accounts to the point where they control 10+ or even 100+ flag-capable / vote-capable HN accounts, and then using them as a network to deny or boost certain topics?

It’s a single board with a full-time moderator and almost everyone on it has a background in information technology. These kinds of networks leave very obvious signatures, and the site simply isn’t a big enough place for them to hide.

> This kind of behavior almost certainly goes on here.

Do you have any examples?
by jpc0 | 2025-10-18 11:09:42+00:00
AES67 is the open standard, ravenna and dante are extensions/alterations of it (well dante preceded aes67 but can be run in aes67 compatibility) and none of them require FPGAs, they usually use FPGAs to keep latency very low but they work just fine with any network card that supports PTPv2 and in dante case it’s not even that strict.

Go grab the ravenna docs, it’s pretty close to the spec for AES67 with added details for how to communicate metadata. You will find it, SMPTE2110 and the likes is all built on-top of existing standards (RTP, PTP, amongst others), even AVB which has much stricter requirements regarding latency is the same. These aren’t complex proprietary standards, they are standards which just specifies restrictions and interactions between other standards.

What I’m getting at is the Klark Teknik and Behringer after then refusing to use these standards as their interconnect is the industry outlier, the only other example in this discussion which still has relevance is Allen and Heath and they now do actually support Dante stage boxes on their models.

Twinlan and the other examples were never the only options, Digico and soundcraft support madi by default, Yamaha effectively spurred dante into existence in the live industry. Their proprietary protocol are there to solve problems that cannot be solved with the standard interconnect, usually latency or channel count or both.