MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kijin | 2025-10-18 00:10:42+00:00
Not the parent, but it sounds like they blocked the entire country, including Googlebot's Singaporean IP ranges.

If your server returns different content when Google crawls it compared to when normal users visit, they might suspect that you are trying to game the system. And yes, they do check from multiple locations with non-Googlebot user agents.

I'm not sure if showing an error page also counts as returning different content, but I guess the problem could be exacerbated by any content you include in the error page unless you're careful with the response code. Definitely don't make it too friendly. Whitelist important business partners.
by _pdp_ | 2025-10-18 00:10:47+00:00
You forgot to include some vulnerabilities. It just doesn't feel complete to me.

Jokes aside, I'm not mentioning who, but right on the front page of a popular vibe coding platform you can see a bunch of promoted real-world projects and almost all of them have some gaping security hole - and I'm not referring to the click-jacking kind.
by ZephyrBlu | 2025-10-18 00:11:55+00:00
The thing I'm most curious about from this article is how/why the author was demoted from E9 to E7. A demotion in itself is pretty unusual, but being bumped down 2 levels seems super weird.

E: ok watched an interview the author gave and the answer was very boring. He requested a demotion because he moved from management back to IC.
by nlh | 2025-10-18 00:13:06+00:00
It's funny and this timing is perfect - just today two (mostly non-technical) friends, unprompted, sent me two different "projects" they just launched. Both have the same identical and unmistakable AI design with pills and tags and highlights and icons and all that. Both are bland, don't really offer anything deeply novel, but are unmistakably real and perhaps even usable.

On the one hand - I'm actually psyched that mostly nontechnical people have successfully launched their ideas into the world. This would have eaten up time and at least several $thousand previously.

On the other hand, they are both super blah projects.

Date I say it: The AI Slop Web App era has arrived in full force.
by fasbiner | 2025-10-18 00:13:26+00:00
1) left horseshoe prong (prolific handcrafted quantity is quality): "4000 handcrafted unique rooms made by one person" that are all fundamentally the same in terms of non-consequential interactivity. Ie, the quality is extremely low compared to what you can actually do even with QBasic!

Online, almost nobody is actually going to crack open the interactions.txt file. Instead, the conversation is about the idea of it being interesting or of any special qualities, when it isn't. The thing itself is just a prop for the conversation, and you can see where anyone actually talking about the thing itself is on the margins.

When this is for a free text adventure game, it's harmless fun to hype it. But the other prong is AAA hype and AI hype, which seems like the opposite but is actually the same thing.

2) right horseshoe prong ("infinitely generated quantity is quality"): "100,000,000,000 unique planets made by one generative codebase" was the premise of Endless Space and it had a very rocky launch that took years of bespoke human work and decisions to improve the quality. Because when you're deadset on quantity being your primary quality, you also don't have time for intractable complexity or true differentiation.

And you can see the consequences play out in an adventure game like Starfield where they included infinite random planet generation, except the interactions and space of player decisions remain the exact same, so it's more like an infinite screensaver than gameplay.

On both ends, the media and discussion is aggressively channeled away from the thing itself and towards the narrative of it being something compelling and noteworthy by virtue of how it was created.

The "robot barista" at the SF airport "making" you an espresso by having a servo arm insert a kurig cup and charging you 5 bucks is extremely similar to someone charging you 50 bucks at a craft fair for a "handmade" set of earrings that look suspiciously like someone just wrapped some copper wiring they bought online around a semi-precious stone they bought online.

In one case you are "participating in a spectacle of the future" and living in an aesthetically futuristic moment while paying 500% markup to drink a shitty instant espresso, and in the other you are "participating in a spectacle of the past" and harkening back to the aesthetic of a time where we all came together as a close-knit community at our town market to support our village crafters and artists while... also paying a 500% markup for goods where real or perceptible increase in quality/value-add is often marginal.

The goods which are remarkable speak for themselves, the rest is marketing.
by jongjong | 2025-10-18 00:14:56+00:00
Great point. Also, having to support multiple IDs is a maintenance headache.

IMO, a major problem solved by UUIDs is the ability to create IDs on the client-side, hence, they are inherently user-facing. A major reason why this is an important use case for UUIDs is because it allows clients to avoid accidental duplication of records when an insertion fails due to network issues. It provides insertion idempotence.

For example, when the user clicks on a button on a form to insert a record into a database, the client can generate the UUID on the client-side, then attach it to a JSON object, then send the object to the server for insertion; in the meantime, if there is a network issue and it's unclear whether or not the record was inserted, the code can automatically retry (or user can manually retry) and there is no risk of duplication of data if you use the same UUID.

This is impossible to do with auto-incrementing IDs because those are generated by the database in a centralized way so the user cannot know the ID head of time and thus, if there is a network failure while submitting a form, the client cannot automatically know whether or not the record was successfully inserted; if they retry, they may create a duplicate record in the database. There is no way to make the operation idempotent without relying on some kind of fixed ID which has a uniqueness constraint on the database side.
by chuckadams | 2025-10-18 00:15:05+00:00
It's the nature of B+ trees, multiplied by the nature of clustered indexes: if you use a UUIDv4 as a primary key, your entire row gets moved to random locations, which really sucks when you normally retrieve them sequentially. With a non-clustered index (say, your UUIDv4 id you use for public APIs when you don't want to leak the v7 info) then you'll still get more fragmentation with the random data, but it's something autovacuum can usually keep up with. But it's more work it has to do on top of everything else it does.
by tremon | 2025-10-18 00:15:35+00:00
It's as if DPRK demanded to have a US citizen extradited in order to be executed for blasphemy

Not really. It's more like DPRK messaging a private US citizen directly, repeatedly and incessantly, that they will be executed for blasphemy. Ofcom is not using proper diplomatic channels here.

Why should parisians care? Why would France cooperate with enforcing such laws?

Everyone here seems convinced that Parisians should care about this, because the majority opinion seems to be that it's perfectly acceptable for the UK government to arrest Parisians for having ever smoked a cigarette in Paris, should they set foot on UK soil. I do not agree that this is a defensible application of law.
by brazukadev | 2025-10-18 00:15:58+00:00
> - There’s no consistent registry, versioning, or discovery story. Sharing or updating MCPs across environments feels ad hoc, and you often have to wire everything manually each time.

yes there is:

https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry

and here you have frontends for the registry https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/registry/blob/main/d...

Everything is new so we are all building it in real time. This used to be the most fun times for a developer: new tech, everybody excited, lots of new startups taking advantage of new platforms/protocols.
by roncesvalles | 2025-10-18 00:17:52+00:00
I think it's relatively straightforward to get to E5 even if just by being hired as one. A good number, I want to say a majority but don't have the data, of externally hired E5 at FAANG were E4 in their previous role.

Getting E5 to E6 seems to be the great filter. But if you know what it takes to go from E5 to E6, I think going from E6 to E9 is smooth sailing (provided you find wind in your sails).

But by then the marginal utility of a promotion starts dropping sharply. If you're already earning upwards of $450k as an E5, $550k or even $800k isn't that attractive.
by omnicognate | 2025-10-18 00:18:38+00:00
This is the usual blurring of lines you see in dismissals of Penrose. You call the argument "unsound" as if it contains some hard error of logic and can be dismissed as a result, but what you state are objections to the assumptions (not the reasoning) based on your qualitative evaluation of various pieces of evidence, none of which are conclusive.

There's nothing wrong with seeing the evidence and reaching your own conclusions, but I see exactly the same evidence and reach very different ones, as we interpret and weight it very differently. On the "existence of a physical process that cannot be computed", I know enough of physics (I have a degree in it, and a couple of decades of continued learning since) to know how little we know. I don't find any argument that boils down to "it isn't among the things we've figured out therefore it doesn't exist" remotely persuasive. On the achievements of AI, I see no evidence of human-like mathematical reasoning in LLMs and don't expect to, IMO demos and excitable tweets notwithstanding. My goalpost there, and it has never moved and never will, is independent, valuable contributions to frontier research maths - and lots of them! I want the crank-the-handle-and-important-new-theorems-come-out machine that people have been trying to build since computers were invented. I expect a machine implementation of human-like mathematical thought to result in that, and I see no sign of it on the horizon. If it appears, I'll change my tune.

I acknowledge that others have different views on these issues and that however strongly I feel I have the right of it, I could still turn out to be wrong. I would enjoy some proper discussion of the relative merits of these positions, but it's not a promising start to talk about throwing things in the garbage right at the outset or, like the person earlier in this thread, call the opposing viewpoint "stupid".
by _heimdall | 2025-10-18 00:19:25+00:00
Yeah I'll keep an eye out for all of them when I'm in the market. I generally find the best results with the Buicks though, its more common to find one in good shape with a good service history.

The one I drive now was a one owner, it was literally a little old lady's Sunday church car that she sold because she decided to give up her keys. Its not perfect, and the AC compressor needed to be replaced, but they were the kind of owners that took it in ever 3k miles to a mechanic they trusted and fixed whatever the shop recommended.
by brazukadev | 2025-10-18 00:19:29+00:00
> MCPs are interpreters of those function calls.

No, tool calls are just one of many MCP parts. People thinking MCP = SOAP or DCOM or JSON-RPC or OpenAPI didn't stop 20 minutes to read and understand MCP.

Tool calls is 20% of MCP, at maximum. And a good amount of it is dynamically generating the tool list exposed to LLMs. But lots of people here think MCP === give the model 50 tools to choose from
by godelski | 2025-10-18 00:20:25+00:00
I know some of these people. We've had deep conversations about what is going on in our thought processes. Their description significantly differs from mine.

These people are common enough that you likely know some. It's just not a topic that frequently comes up.

It is also a spectrum, not a binary thing (though full anendophasia does exist, it is just on the extreme end). I think your own experiences should allow you to doubt your claim. For example, I know when I get really into a fiction book I'm reading that I transition from a point where I'm reading the words in my head to seeing the scenes more like a movie, or more accurately like a dream. I talk to myself in my head a lot, but I can also think without words. I do this a lot when I'm thinking about more physical things like when I'm machining something, building things, or even loading dishwasher. So it is hard for me to believe that while I primarily use an internal monologue that there aren't people that primarily use a different strategy.

On top of that, well, I'm pretty certain my cat doesn't meow in her head. I'm not certain she has a language at all. So why would it be surprising that this condition exists? You'd have to make the assumption that there was a switch in human evolution. Where it happened all at once or all others went extinct. I find that less likely than the idea that we just don't talk enough about how we think to our friends.

Certainly there are times where you think without a voice in your head. If not, well you're on the extreme other end. After all, we aren't clones. People are different, even if there's a lot of similarities.
by ivanjermakov | 2025-10-18 00:20:33+00:00
The drawback is that this approach elevates code blocks to first class. It means that there is a semantical difference between a value that is a block and a value that is a result of a block. This reduces code clarity, because now block def/result is discriminated by context instead of syntax.

- closures get tricky, i.e. having outer scoped variables within a block

- inter-block operators still need special care, e.g. return should return from a function or a nearest block, same for break/continue/etc.
by keeda | 2025-10-18 00:20:46+00:00
Also:

- Not having to perform the repetitive, mind-numbingly-dull-yet-somehow-simultaneously-stressful cognitive task of driving.

- Instead, having the freedom to engage in more relaxing, productive or creative pursuits in this era of smartphones; do work, watch videos, read books, sleep, or even just look out the window.

- Never having to deal with traffic jams. Or road rage.

- Getting a chance to walk places for free instead of paying to do the same thing on a treadmill in a gym.
by soulofmischief | 2025-10-18 00:20:54+00:00
What behavior precisely do you think is hiding in quantum region?

I'm on board with Hofstadter's strange loops but at most, quantum-level interaction should just amount to noise that is stabilized by the higher-order chemical region in which the brain operates. What even are we looking for at this point?

What aspect of my experience is not likely to just be a result of chemical interactions in the brain?
by tzs | 2025-10-18 00:21:55+00:00
> 10 years ago you could go onto a lot and buy a brand new Dodge Dart for around $17,000.

$17k 10 years ago is $23k today. That's under the MSRP of a 2026 Toyota Corolla.

In constant dollars car prices for comparable trim levels of similar styles of car have actually been have been pretty steady for the last 40 years or so. The average car is a lot more expensive now in constant dollars because the mix of cars bought has shifted significantly toward larger and more luxurious cars.

For example when I was looking for a new car earlier this year I looked at the Honda Civic. When I compared the price to my last Civic, which I bought in 1989, it was about the same after correcting for inflation since 1989. I also looked at the CR-V, and when comparing to my 2006 CR-V today's CR-V after correction for inflation since 2006 is actually about 5-10% cheaper.
by losvedir | 2025-10-18 00:22:12+00:00
I'm a little confused about the relationship of Skills and just plain tools. It seems like a lot of skills might just be tools. Or, they might rely on calling sets of tools with some instructions.

But aren't the tool definitions and skill definitions in different places? How do you express the dependency? Can skills say they require command line access, python, tool A, and tool B, and when you load the skill it sets those as available tool calls?
Show HN: Code review for AI native teams
by Areibman | 2025-10-18 00:22:33+00:00
Bottleneck is a desktop app for code reviewing AI-written pull requests.

The goal is to be able to track PRs on GitHub authored by agents (i.e. Codex, Devin, Cursor, Claude Code) and compare branches. So if you throw multiple coding agents at a ticket, this would be an easier way to let agents "bake off" against each other and pick the best one. (No need to open the Github website and switch between slow loading tabs).

I'd love feedback from any power users who are deep with AI coding agents.
by roody15 | 2025-10-18 00:23:03+00:00
One inherent limitation of current LLM/AI is that they are primarily trained on abstracted data that focuses primarily on mimicking our logical and reasoning prefrontal cortex portion of the mind. However most humans make decisions based on activity in the limbic regions of the brain which are essentially emotional and intuition based. So we often will do something before we actually know why we did it, however to maintain a sense of self and sanity we will then use our prefrontal cortex to create a cohesive narrative on why we do what we do (despite it often being inaccurate).

In a nutshell we are mimicking neural activity in a certain region based on certain abstracted data which is quite removed from how we as humans process reality.
by _heimdall | 2025-10-18 00:23:31+00:00
Its interesting to me that Codex has such high sentiment. I'm definitely an outlier on the more principled end of the spectrum, but I refuse to use OpenAI products.

I take issue with the AI industry in general and the hand-wavy approach to risk, but OpenAI really is on another level in my book. While I don't trust the industry's approach to AI development, with OpenAI I don't trust the leaderships' intentions.
by hatthew | 2025-10-18 00:23:54+00:00
This is interesting, but I'm not convinced it's better than the python it's being compared to. Memorizing and understanding the behavior of functions that perform control flow seems no easier than memorizing and understanding hardcoded syntax/keywords. The additional flexibility of making everything a first-class citizen allows people to write code that is too clever for its own good. I could be wrong but I think there is a broad consensus that reflection is a Bad Idea.

Open to being convinced otherwise

(tangent but related, aren't the "Loops" and "Iteration" examples given for python literally the exact same syntax, with the exception of changing how the iterable is generated?)
by __loam | 2025-10-18 00:24:00+00:00
Computational neurons were developed with the express intent of studying models of the brain based on the contemporary understanding of neuroscience. That understanding has evolved massively over the last 7 decades and meanwhile the concept of the perceptron has proven to be a useful mathematical construct in machine learning and statistical computing. I blame the modern business culture if software development more than I blame dead scientists for the misunderstanding being peddled to the public.
by fragmede | 2025-10-18 00:24:26+00:00
Where codex falls short is in background processing, both running a daemon in the background and using its output as context while simultaneously being interactive for the user, and with subagents, ie, do multiple things in parallel. Presumably codex will catch up, but for now, that puts Claude Code ahead of things for me.

As far as which one is better, it's highly dependent on what we're each doing, but I will say that I have this one project where bare "make" won't work, and I have a script that needs to be run instead. I have instructions to call that script in multiple .md files, and codex is able to call the script instead of make, but it keeps forgetting that and tries to run make which fails and it gets confused. (Claude code running on macOS host but build on Linux vm.) I could work around it, but that really takes the "shiny" factor off of codex+GPT-5 for me.
by nis0s | 2025-10-18 00:24:29+00:00
I don’t know about SF, but increased homelessness is related to illegal immigration

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/BFI_WP_2...

May be partly related in CA as well

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-27/failure-...
by jebarker | 2025-10-18 00:25:19+00:00
I think about this plateauing question quite a bit. I'm 44 and around the E6 level. I think it is very challenging for me to progress much further up the ladder. I'm not confident I have the skillset required and trying to develop those (leadership and strategic) skills feels very hard to me. But I don't find that at all disappointing since I'm fairly confident I can continue to progress sideways. Maybe it's naive or arrogant but I think I could probably get close to a similar level again in a different field and eventually that'll be what I try to do.
by 7thpower | 2025-10-18 00:26:43+00:00
It is primarily a principal agent problem, with a hint of marshmallow test.

If you are a developer who is not writing the documents for consumption by AI, you are primarily writing documents for someone who is not you; you do not know what this person will need or if they will ever even look at them.

They may, of course, help you, but you may not understand that, have the time, or discipline.

If you are writing them because the AI using them will help you, you have a very strong and immediate incentive to document the necessary information. You also have the benefit of a short feedback loop.

Side note, thanks to the LLMs penchant of wiping out comments, I have a lot more docs these days and far fewer comments.
by sokoloff | 2025-10-18 00:26:55+00:00
> But by then the marginal utility of a promotion starts dropping sharply. If you're already earning upwards of $450k as an E5, $550k or even $800k isn't that attractive.

Going from $450K/yr to $800K/yr probably triples or quadruples the amount you can save per year without feeling like you’re constantly scrimping.

That drives down the time to F-you money, which is appealing and gives substantial psychological safety/power.
by hshdhdhj4444 | 2025-10-18 00:26:57+00:00
It’s meaningless. S&P downgraded the US in 2013 or so and it had no effect.

S&P (and other) ratings are very useful for many things, but they’re rarely useful for major sovereign countries because all medium to big firms already have tons of resources invested in researching these nations.

S&P has no new or secret information about France that hundreds of other firms don’t already have.
by Tuna-Fish | 2025-10-18 00:27:53+00:00
For it's day, it packed a lot of compute into cheap package, so long as you could do something useful with a data set that fit into 256kB, the size of the local memory buffer on each SPE. If you overflowed that, the anemic system bandwidth would make it suck. Protein folding was an example of a problem that back then used tons of compute but could be fit into small space.
by dmadisetti | 2025-10-18 00:28:04+00:00
We've addressed this too by allowing a setup cell:

... with app.setup: import numpy as np @app.cell def cell_uses_np(): # no np needed in signature result = np....

The best part about this pattern is that it enables "pure" (only dependent on setup cell) functions to be addressable:

with app.setup: from typing import Optional, Any @app.function def my_fn(arg: Optional[Any]) -> Any: ...

but nice convergent design :) glad to see to see we're addressing pain points