MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rwmj | 2025-10-05 16:10:05+00:00
I agree there is definitely more work required to get something working with IPv6 (though not 10x). However to say that doing this is "0 x the return". You're ignoring a solid third to half of the broad internet, which is not nothing. Plus if you're trying to sell to me then I'm definitely not going to adopt your product if you've made no effort on IPv6.
by dagmx | 2025-10-05 16:10:49+00:00
I said it’s an averaging factor not an absolute match.

A senior with a LLM will likely still outperform a junior. A CS major with an LLM will out perform an English major.

But is the senior out performing the junior at a level that warrants the difference in salary?

Then people will point to the intangibles of experience, but will forget the intangibles of being fresh and new with regards to being malleable and gung-ho.
by CharlieDigital | 2025-10-05 16:11:10+00:00
What are you working on that you're debugging annotations everyday? I'd say you've made a big mistake if you're doing that/you didn't read the docs and don't understand how to use the attribute.

(Of course you are also free to write C# without any of the built in frameworks and write purely explicit handling and routing)

On the other hand, we write CRUD every day so anything that saves repetition with CRUD is a gain.
by germandiago | 2025-10-05 16:11:13+00:00
I am not talking about C# specifically but also and I agree.

Implicit and magic looks nice at first but sometimes it can be annoying. I remember the first time I tried Ruby On Rails and I was looking for a piece of config.

Yes, "convention over configuration". Namely, ungreppsble and magic.

This kind of stuff must be used with a lot of care.

I usually favor explicit and, for config, plain data (usually toml).

This can be extended to hidden or non-obvious allocations and other stuff (when I work with C++).

It is better to know what is going on when you need to and burying it in a couole of layers can make things unnecessarily difficult.
by iisan7 | 2025-10-05 16:11:29+00:00
Except for one thing ... Schools tend not to fail many people. When an entire cohort has a different level of ability, standards adjust. Possibly some proctored, standardized exams might be more comparable over time. I have read that, controlling for student demographics, SAT scores (frequently used for US college entrance) were increasing until the mid 2000s and then flat since then.
by trod1234 | 2025-10-05 16:11:52+00:00
Until now, people have had the leverage/cost asymmetry in their favor where they could easily differentiate and make rational choices.

AI has tipped that nuanced balance in a way that is both destructive, and unsustainable. Just like any other fraud or ponzi.

Cost/loss constraint function now favors the unskilled, blind, destructive individual running an LLM who spits on all those that act with good faith. Quite twisted.
by Qem | 2025-10-05 16:12:09+00:00
Meat spoils fast. So your society would need no record keeping(writing) because without refrigeration or salt mining you can't store meat like grain. Animals move around, so taking tons of meat kilometers back to the village takes time that's already counting for spoilage. So you are less likely to have a village in first place. That would be more pratical to go full nomadic and set temporary camp near the carcass of the more recently slaughtered multi-ton beast. No need to transport anthing besides yourself.

> I also don't entirely follow your point that goes from 'backbreaking work' to 'sedentary lifestyle'. The latter only happened in the post war years when we worked out how to have all of the energy we need on tap

By sedentary lifestyle I don't mean individual sedentarism, like being a couch potato. I mean society-wide, in the sense of not living in permanent settlements were people spend their lives mostly in the same plot of land, but are constantly on the move.
by f1shy | 2025-10-05 16:12:09+00:00
When I was naive and young I dreamed about some day make a programming language that was just english…

The I learned about y2k, there was such a thing (more or less) from Apple. It implied knowing a strict subset of english and the correct words and constructs… it was a pain to program that (at least for me)

More or less at that time, I started understanding that programming languages limitations, although at the beginning a necessity, were a feature. Indeed it was already a very small subset of English, with very specific, succinct, small grammar, that was easy to learn (well, C++ stoped being learnable some years ago… but you get the point)

The idea of LLM eliminating good designed languages is hard for me to believe, just as stated in the article.
by linuxissortof | 2025-10-05 16:12:10+00:00
> Why does Linus Torvalds get a pass, even admired, for OPENLY being an extremely vitriolic f*ker, and continuing to be so even after being called out for it to his face in interviews/questions from the audience,

Linux is a major part of the human species' infrastructure. So Linus asking people to put effort into things, and prioritize Linux over themselves to a significant degree, even when the going is hard, is typically reasonable. And he probably gets upset when people are lackadaisical about the process and the effort. If there are fuckups, billions can be affected. That doesn't make any action fine, indeed being gentle can in some cases be the best and most effective and responsible action. But that isn't always the case. Is Linus perfect or optimal? Might a better system exist? Maybe, but there is risk in experimenting. There are other kernels than Linux that can have different processes, and having a diversity of kernels and processes may be good.

What other kernels are there, what processes have they followed, and how have they fared? Windows kernels have done well in terms of usage, but there are a wealth of different reasons for that.
by Frieren | 2025-10-05 16:12:42+00:00
> I guess we can keep fantasizing and thinking about it.

Strong regulations is the answer. To think that big corporations are going to do anything for us out of their good heart is naive and dangerous.

If a society wants nice things then they need to fight for it. Get elected officials that care to fix things, that fights against big corporations, and that help to split their monopolies.

The USA thinks that they can get a better Internet by doing nothing, like by magic. The reality is that government and civil society are going to need to put a lot of effort to reign in the big tech monopolies.
by maxberdnikau | 2025-10-05 16:13:15+00:00
SEEKING WORK

Hi! I’m Max — a seasoned Designer & Developer with 13+ years of experience across Product Design, UX/UI, Software Development, Analytics, and Management.

I help companies turn ideas into world-class digital products — from strategy and design to implementation. With 13+ years across design, product, and development, I combine creative direction with hands-on execution to deliver measurable impact.

If you need help building or designing something impactful, feel free to reach out!

Location: Warsaw, Poland

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Des: User Research, User Flow, UX/UI, Web, Holistic, Design System, Wireframes, Email Design, Dashboards, Mobile App Design, 3D, Illustrations, Animations, Figma, FinTech, E-commerce.

Dev: Ruby, Rails, Hotwire, JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Vue, Svelte, Nest, Next, Nuxt, Tailwind, Postgres, Docker, CI/CD (Gitlab & Github), Grafana, etc.

Email: maxberdnikau@gmail.com
by daxfohl | 2025-10-05 16:13:22+00:00
The author may have hit on the answer without realizing it. He's in the gym doing pull-ups. Is his lat strength necessary for some important part of his survival? Highly unlikely. Pre-20th century, when most work was highly physical, would he have gone out after work to research and test out efficient lat exercises? Probably not either.

If we're not using our brains for work, then maybe it'll actually increase our deliberateness to strengthen them at home. In fact, I can't imagine that not to be the case. I mean, it's possible we turn into a society of mindless zombies, but fundamentally, at least among some reasonable percentage of the population, I have to believe there is an innate desire to learn and understand and build, and a relationship-building aspect to it as well.
by yukeabu | 2025-10-05 16:13:53+00:00
Rust’s built-in notion of safety is intentionally focused on memory + data-race properties at compile time. logic, timing, and determinism are left to libraries and design. Ada (with SPARK & Ravenscar) treats contracts, concurrency discipline, and timing analysis as first-class language/profile concerns hence a broader safety envelope.

You may choose to think from safety guarantee hierarchy perspective like (Bottom = foundation... Top = highest assurance)

Layer 6: FORMAL PROOFS (functional correctness, no RT errors) Ada/SPARK: built-in (GNATprove) Rust: external tools (Kani, Prusti, Verus)

Layer 5: TIMING / REAL-TIME ANALYSIS (WCET, priority bounds) Ada: Ravenscar profile + scheduling analysis Rust: frameworks (RTIC, Embassy)

Layer 4: CONCURRENCY DETERMINISM (predictable schedules) Ada: protected objects + task priorities Rust: data-race freedom; determinism via design

Layer 3: LOGICAL CONTRACTS & INVARIANTS (pre/post, ranges) Ada: Pre/Post aspects, type predicates (built-in) Rust: type states, assertions, external DbC tools

Layer 2: TYPE SAFETY (prevent invalid states) Ada: range subtypes, discriminants Rust: newtypes, enums, const generics

Layer 1: MEMORY SAFETY & DATA-RACE FREEDOM Ada: runtime checks; SPARK proves statically Rust: compile-time via ownership + Send/Sync
by hyperhello | 2025-10-05 16:13:54+00:00
I can answer that with a comparison to burgers.

These businesses always start with someone noticing that the average person wants to do something that an expert can do something very easily. For example, flipping a burger and handing it to you. Anyone can make a burger, but an expert can spend a few days and a few hundred bucks figuring out how to finish a hundred an hour including prep and cleanup for $x.xx per unit.

Next, they rent a space and train cheap labor to do whatever it is they want, and start advertising. Maybe it doesn't catch on, maybe people would have said, "A goofy looking building where teenagers just make burgers all day? I'm not going to that, I feel stupid, and I won't tell my friends to meet me there. Undignified", but actually in this timeline it caught on. No problem.

Since it worked in one place, it worked everywhere, so now there are hundreds of thousands of burger joints, and what makes the successful ones successful are marketing and logistics. There's a building somewhere where Wendy's executives get together and figure out how to secure access to cheap beef and potatoes and how much to bid for some children's entertainer to lend buzz to the products.

But what eventually happens, is that the original conditions that made the idea possible no longer exist. In the case of burgers, it is a lack of cheap beef and cheap labor that no longer exists. So Wendys has to struggle, and be seen struggling. They come up with ideas like "surge pricing" for burgers and get roasted in the press for being out of touch. The ideas seem sensible from their offices because they don't want to give up their executive salaries and go flip burgers for a living.

So investors are always looking for the next turn-key get-rich-quick scheme. Here, it's "charge your car for $15". Simple to say, simple to implement, and sounds like you might be able to sit in a big office building pretending to work: why, we could charge a little less or a little more! We're experts!

The problem that you've pointed out is: it's an illusion. They're not selling expertise. They're mentally skipping ahead to the part just before they start realizing that. Since you're not invested in the idea that only an expert can provide people with the electricity they need to get around, it seems dumb to you.
by robocat | 2025-10-05 16:13:59+00:00
Feel-good article.

The idea seems like an environmental abomination. Anything can be recycled if you are willing to waste resources to do it.

In this case the main waste appears to be indirect through money spent on mail and wages (and some wasted time and opportunity cost). My rule of thumb is that spent money is a good approximation for environmental damage. Ultimately waste is generated by people, the vast majority being indirectly via the services and goods they buy.

I do think that the business sounds quite smart.
by realusername | 2025-10-05 16:13:59+00:00
Not a single user cares about "native ui", it's only a debate among developers. Take the top 20 apps people are using, all of them use their own design system which isn't native.

Flutter will always have multiple advantages against React Native (and even Native toolkits themselves) in terms of upgradability, you can do 6 months of updates with only 30mins of work and make sure it 100% works everywhere.

The quality of the testing toolkit is also something which is still unmatched elsewhere and makes a big difference on the app reliability.
by laborcontract | 2025-10-05 16:14:28+00:00
> Jobs excelled at taking a niche product category and reinventing it for the masses.

It was more than this. He understood how to communicate to both customers/employees why what they bought/worked on mattered. For all the stories of his assholery, very few people bring up that the same people who complained about his assholery also acknowledge that he brought the best work out of them.
by ZeroConcerns | 2025-10-05 16:14:33+00:00
So, yeah, I recently learned about Westjet while visiting Ireland, and my first thought was "ah, OK, so Canada's RyanAir, eh?"

And they seem to be following the very same media playbook: make outrageous statements about some kind of insane fees they're going to introduce (like the famous RyanAir toilet-use add-on) to emphasize how cheap they are.

Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
by ineedasername | 2025-10-05 16:14:34+00:00
“I don’t buy that a lack of long form books are the culprit”

I agree that they might not, in themselves, be a necessary requirement, however: the ability to engage with material, short or long, at a level of deep focus and intentionality is important. And one of the (extremely common, historically) stronger methods of doing this is with long form content, the less passive and more challenging the better.

It touches on the topic of generally transferable— or diffuse, neurologically speaking— skills. It’s what is frustrating when speaking with folks who insist on ideas like “I shouldn’t have to take all these non-STEM courses”. A truly myopic world view that lacks fundamental understanding of human cognition, especially for the subgroup with this sentiment that will readily affirm the inverse: Non-STEM folks should nonetheless have a strong grounding in maths and sciences for the modes of thinking they impart.

Why the difference? It’s a strange, highly mechanistic and modular view of how critical thinking faculties function. As though, even with plenty of exclusivity, there isn’t still enormous overlapping structures that light up in the brain with all tasks that require concentration. The salience network in particular is critical when reading challenging material as well as during stem-related thinking, eg Math. Which, ironically, means the challenging courses involving analytical literature are precisely the courses that, taken seriously, would lay down neural pathways in a persons salience network that would be extremely useful in thinking about challenging math problems with more tools at your disposal, more angles of attack.

It really shouldn’t require much of an intuitive leap to realize that reading and interpreting complex works of literary creativity or other areas of a GenHumanities topics will help impart the ability to think in creative ways. It’s in the task name. Spending 3x16 hours in a class for a semester, roughly the same for work outside the class, 6 or 7 times throughout a 4 year college stretch is a very small cost for value.

I think the foundational failing of education for the past decades falls into all of these gaps in understanding and the inability to engage with the learning process because too few people can even articulate the relevance of highly relevant material.
by ednite | 2025-10-05 16:14:45+00:00
Not sure where the “blasting people” take is coming from. I’m not for or against it, people should use whatever tools work for them. I do have a few real concerns, like its ability to convince us so quickly, which is why I wrote about safety and the need for regulation. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-AI. Like any new tech, there’s good and bad. I use it, I write about it, and I share my experiences; that’s all I’m really doing.
by wredcoll | 2025-10-05 16:14:52+00:00
That blows my mind.

I walk by an apple store regularly, its full of people standing around, even at like 2pm on a weekday.

I'm always confused. What are those people doing?

I get buying apple products, I generally don't, but they're good at somethings and bad at others, so you know, choices.

But why go to an apple store, much less stand around? Apple products are just generic at this point. There's a new phone, which is exactly the same as the last 10 phones. Or a laptop or a tablet, etc.
by ashtonsix | 2025-10-05 16:15:02+00:00
Not having (1 << k) - 1 as a single instruction sucks when it HAS to be in a hot loop, but you can usually hoist this to the loop prolougue: my stuff uses dummy inline assembly hints to force compilers to do this `asm volatile("" : "+w"(m));`.

I personally think calibrating ARM's ISA on smaller VL was a good choice: you get much better IPC. You also have an almost-complete absence of support for 8-bit elements with x86 ISAs, so elements per instruction is tied. And NEON kind-of-ish makes up for its small VL with multi-register TBL/TBX and LDP/STP.

Also: AVX512 is just as non-existent on clients as SVE2; although not really relevant for the server-side targets I'm optimising for (mostly OLAP).
by maxberdnikau | 2025-10-05 16:15:29+00:00
Hi! I am Max. I am an Engineer with 13+ years of experience and extensive knowledge in several areas: UI Design, Software Development, Analytics. Involved in creation of several startups and have previously created my own products and tools. I have a strong mathematical background.

Interested in fintech, crypto, LLMs, AI, and complex business-technical systems. Open to joining early-stage startups or other interesting opportunities.

Location: Warsaw, Poland

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes

Technologies: Ruby, Rails, Hotwire, JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Vue, Svelte, Nest, Next, Nuxt, Tailwind, Postgres, Docker, CI/CD (Gitlab & Github), Grafana, etc.

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maxberdnikau/

Email: maxberdnikau@gmail.com
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-05 16:15:34+00:00
> that's pretty indirect and a far cry from "putting the money to productive use."

All finance is indirect. Particularly at small scale.

> Unless you're an early investor or IPO participant

Plenty of IPOs are entirely secondary. And public companies regularly raise money via at-the-market offerings, where a random trader may wind up cutting a cheque to the corporate treasury. (I’ve been a seed investor and IPO investor. My effects on the outcome were rarely singularly meaningful.)

In a large offering, a small IPO investor has about as much direct effect on the outcome as someone buying the pop publicly. In aggregate, however, their actions are meaningful and productive.

Put another way: contrast two economies, one in which most capital is tied up sports gambling (negative-sum game), the other in which it’s in equities (positive-sum long term), one will outperform the other.
by tokai | 2025-10-05 16:15:36+00:00
>I also don't entirely follow your point that goes from 'backbreaking work'

There is research pointing to hunter gathers only needed to do a couple of hours of work daily, while neolithic people engaged in agriculture had to work much longer hours for the same kcal output.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
by dagmx | 2025-10-05 16:15:54+00:00
Yes, I fore warn all candidates that they will do a coding test, with examples of similar tests.

They are allowed to suggest the language they’re most familiar with, they’re told they don’t need to finish and they don’t need to be correct.

It’s just about seeing how they work through something.

If someone like the person you replied to would show up that unprepared , I would really question their own judgement of their abilities.
by skydhash | 2025-10-05 16:16:02+00:00
The things is there's multiple computation models, and while they are equivalent, there's a fairly involved computation needed to move from one model to the next. Then you got a lot of patterns of abstractions and best practices (best known as paradigm) that are built on top of those models to get today's programming languages.

So something like python is a fairly specialized language. Most of its concepts are not that easy to translate to another language which may involved another set of specialized paradigms.

You will need to revert to a common base, which basically means unravel what gives Python its identity, then rebuild according to the other programming language identity. And there's a lot of human choices in there which will be the most difficult to replicate. The idiomatic way of programming is a subset of what is possible in the language just to enable faster reading between human developers.

So there's no language agnostic programming as there's no agnostic computation models. It's kinda how there's no agnostic hardware architecture. There's a lot of fairly involved work to have cross-platform programs. But that can work as the common platform is very low-level itself (JVM and other runtimes)
by robin_reala | 2025-10-05 16:16:05+00:00
I don’t dislike them inherently, but as people tend to believe they’re a one-stop solution it’s worth pointing out what they can’t do:

- On their own they don’t provide a hypothesis. You need to do user research to discover those.

- On their own they don’t tell you the value in what you’re testing. You need further analysis to understand that.

- They’re typically a short-term solution to longer-term problems. It’s easy to use them to achieve local maxima without understanding the wider picture.

- They’ll only tell you what the majority of your users find effective, without highlighting what hurts the journey for a minority of users. For example you could A/B test something that improves the journey for every group apart from visually impaired users, but block them completely, and still implement it because it’s the winning bucket.

Yes, there are guardrails you can put in place for all of these, and good teams do, but that requires a degree of maturity that is hard for a lot of organisations.
by tw04 | 2025-10-05 16:16:14+00:00
> Jobs excelled at taking a niche product category and reinventing it for the masses.

Huh? Jobs didn’t invent much of anything. Woz reinvented personal computing, Jobs built a money printing machine around it.

Hullot convinced Jobs to have an engineering group work on turning the iPod into the iPhone.

Apple wouldn’t be what it is without Jobs but the people who give him all the credit for inventions he had almost nothing to do with gets exhausting.

About the only thing I think was HIS idea was the Lisa, and that was an absolute disaster.