MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by DrScientist | 2025-11-04 10:20:14+00:00
When I see vendors complain about workflow and integration issues, it's because the vendors software is written around an expectation of a certain workflow and integration points and they find out in reality every customer does it slightly differently.

Some key challenges around workflow are that while the fundamental white-board task flow is the same, different companies may distribute those tasks between people and over time in different ways.

Workflow is about flowing the task and associated information between people - not just doing the tasks.

Same goes for integration - the timing of when certain necessary information might be available again not uniform and timing concerns are often missed on the high level whiteboard.

Here's a classic example of ignoring timing issues.

https://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/03/19/universal-credi...
by novoreorx | 2025-11-04 10:21:20+00:00
This kinda resonates with me. I've been using Python for over a decade and the only async method I trusted was gevent, and since I moved to Go after 2016, I never want use Python async in production level project, even I came back to see how it goes almost every year.

But since Python's LLM ecosystem is so well, I really appreciate the courage it takes to migrate to Node when writing a RAG system. I've tried similar things recently, working on a document analyzing project using React Router as the full-stack framework, while put some ETL related work on the Python side, use inngest to bridge Node and Python services. In this way, I got the benefit of Node for LLM chat, while stil able to facilitate Python's SOTA ETL libraries.
by maccard | 2025-11-04 10:21:44+00:00
I live in the UK, and it’s basically £100 to get a tradesperson to show up to my front door regardless of what I want them to do. I can buy a flat screen TV from £100 new from one of the UK high street retailers [1] , or £85 [2] if I go on Amazon

[1] https://www.argos.co.uk/product/7623909?clickPR=plp:6:323

[2] https://amzn.eu/d/bVCBLv3
by carlmr | 2025-11-04 10:21:50+00:00
Depends on the language and the available formatters really, I find the black/ruff formatting style in Python to be very consistent, which helps with git blame. For C++ there's no good default formatter for "small diffs" since they all, as you say, add random line breaks dependending on position of parameters and such.

With style you can do better, but having style is impossible in anything except single developer projects.
by reisse | 2025-11-04 10:22:36+00:00
Ah, the classic programmer's mistake of treating complicated human interaction systems as a computer programs.

There is no State Almighty judging you to the last dot of absurdly complicated rules (well, in 99.99% cases when you don't actively look for trouble). Like, if you overstayed Schengen visa for one day because you messed up with counting entry and exit days, but used it otherwise for its intended purpose, the border officer likely won't even notice. Or for tax residence, a lot of countries I know just take what you say about your trips at face value - especially when there is no way to check it.

Just relax. If you don't know how to count your days in Morocco because they changed the time zone in an inconvenient moment, the officer evaluating your documents doesn't know that too. It's truth and best effort that counts.
by sanskarix | 2025-11-04 10:23:23+00:00
what's always wild to me about these language debates is how much energy people spend defending syntax preferences instead of asking "does this help me ship?"

OCaml's real pain point isn't the syntax - it's that you can't hire for it. if you're building a startup and you pick OCaml, you've just cut your hiring pool by 95%. that's way more painful than learning a different way to write functions.

the whole "academic vs practical" thing is backwards. academic languages often have killer features that would save you real pain, but if your team can't debug it or you can't find Stack Overflow answers at 2am, none of that matters. language choice is a business decision, not a technical purity contest.
by bob1029 | 2025-11-04 10:23:28+00:00
It's cheaper to fix the hole, even if you screw up color matching on the paint a few times.

I've seen a lot of people blow a lot of money on really basic stuff like this (myself included). The lack of basic awareness around hvac, landscaping, drainage, drywall, plumbing, electrical, et. al. has me wondering if I'm still in the right business. ChatGPT can't carry a bag of sand up a hill or dig a ditch. It can tell you about these things and make you feel like a hypothetical god over them, but it can never do the actual work on site. I don't feel like there's a lot of competition around being in Texas crawl spaces during the summer.
by mrweasel | 2025-11-04 10:23:29+00:00
There's probably also a decent chance that the author can't actually do it.

Let's say it's the 9000 lines of code. I'm also not reviewing 900 lines, so it would need to be more than 10 PRs. The code needs to be broken down into useful components, that requires the author to think about design. In this case you'd probably have the DSL parser as a few PRs. If you do it like that it's easier for the reviewer to ask "Why are you doing a DSL?" I feel like in this case the author would struggle to justify the choice and be forced to reconsider their design.

It's not just chopping the existing 9000 lines into X number of bits. It's submitting PRs that makes sense as standalone patches. Submitting 9000 lines in one go tells me that you're a very junior developer and that you need guidance in terms of design and processes.

For open source I think it's fine to simply close the PR without any review and say: Break this down, if you want me to look at it. Then if a smaller PR comes in, it's easier to assess if you even want the code. But if you're the kind of person that don't think twice about submitting 9000 lines of code, I don't think you're capable of breaking down you patch into sensible sub-components.
by sanskarix | 2025-11-04 10:24:03+00:00
the obsession with code elegance vs shipping velocity is telling here. Whitney's style works for him because he's building tools he'll maintain himself for decades. same product, same developer, same context.

most startups are in the opposite situation. you need three different engineers to understand what you built last quarter because two people quit and one went to a different team. your clever abstractions become technical debt when the person who made them isn't around to explain them.

here's the real question: are you optimizing for the code or the business? sometimes boring, verbose, googleable patterns beat clever compression because your constraint isn't keystrokes - it's hiring, onboarding, and velocity when half your team is new. that's startup reality.
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-04 10:24:13+00:00
About 12 years ago they used to use 55022 as a shunter at Springburn yard, because it was "road legal" and could couple up to older carriages that were being taken in for refurbishment. Nice cushy retirement job, easy shifts and a well-appointed engine shed to park up it at night ;-)

I used to hear it all the time, working in a nearby industrial site. I'd maybe just take five minutes to sit outside and drink my coffee, listening to that weird shimmering howl.

There are no good recordings of it on Youtube and I suspect like a lot of things you have to experience it for yourself.
by svaigstu | 2025-11-04 10:25:12+00:00
Modash.io | Multiple roles | Multiple locations | Full-time

• Modash is an end-to-end influencer marketing platform for Shopify stores.

• We help every creator earn a living.

• Tallinn is home. Europe is our lab. Canada joins the frontlines.

• 65 person team, raised €11M in Series A funding, ARR growing 2x YoY.

• Millions paid out to creators to date.

—

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Technical Customer Success Manager, API https://apply.workable.com/modash/j/96C4941FE6/

Account Executive https://apply.workable.com/modash/j/CC8A1D1FE4/

—

Remote, Europe

Senior Backend Engineer https://apply.workable.com/modash/j/D4FA5BA3E6/

Senior Data Engineers https://www.modash.io/careers/senior-data-engineer

Senior Product Engineer (€60k-€100k) https://apply.workable.com/modash/j/C1507B65C3/

—

More roles: https://www.modash.io/careers
by zelphirkalt | 2025-11-04 10:25:43+00:00
The conflicts come of course when you edit a file on 2 devices before Syncthing had a chance to sync them. I mostly solved this by running Snycthing on a server as well as on clients, so that at least the server is always online, as a point of synchronization. So now I only get conflict files, if somehow my phone doesn't have Internet and I edit files on my phone, which happens very rarely.
by bombcar | 2025-11-04 10:25:58+00:00
It's interesting to think about - because Big John obviously takes some time to connect/setup but then can (apparently) deliver 10,000 gallons per minute as long as there's water in the pipes.

Whereas a modern tanker truck can do 1,000 GPM for 2 or 3 minutes, but can do it immediately upon arriving onsite.

https://www.piercemfg.com/fire-trucks/tankers/bx-tanker

It's also relative to how fire-fighting has changed over time, modern buildings that are big enough to NEED the Big John are also much more fire-resistant (concrete instead of wood, etc).
by pif | 2025-11-04 10:26:06+00:00
> (1) Most modern languages discourage or forbid symbol/emoji characters in identifiers

> (2) When it comes to color,

Call me boomer if you wish, but if you can't grasp the value of having your code readable on a 24 rows by 80 columns, black and white screen, you are not a software developer. You are not even a programmer: at most, you are a prompt typist for ChatGPT.
by usrbinenv | 2025-11-04 10:26:15+00:00
If I could make one law related to software, it would be to ban React and React-like frameworks (includes Vue and Svelte I believe): if you have to put more than one line of HTML in your JavaScript, if you have VDOM, if you have a build step - I want this to be illegal. It is entirely possible to write a js-framework that attaches itself to DOM from the top, without any kind of expensive hydration steps or VDOM or templating (I've built one). React is a horrible complex monster that wastes developers time, heats up users' CPUs and generally feels super slow and laggy. 99% percent of websites would work a lot better with SSR and a few lines of JavaScript here and there and there is zero reason to bring anything like React to the table. React is the most tasteless thing ever invented in software.
by Muromec | 2025-11-04 10:26:17+00:00
It's not even hard really, I did it lastyear. I book a visit to the city hall, they look into the address db and see when I registered the first time. I see exactlt the same thing myself when I login into the thing.

The official agrees with me on the appointment date to actually submit the application, that is after cutoff date.

I put a signature on one sheet of paper, pay a thousand and go my way. The thing takes 15 min tops.

But it's continental Europe, not UK
by sanskarix | 2025-11-04 10:26:38+00:00
the beautiful thing about bloom filters is they let you say "definitely not here" without checking everything. that asymmetry is weirdly powerful for specific problems.

I've seen them save startups real money in caching layers - checking "did we already process this event" before hitting the database. false positives are fine because you just check the database anyway, but true negatives save you thousands of queries.

the trick is recognizing when false positives don't hurt you. most engineers learn about them in theory but never find that practical use case where they're actually the right tool. same with skip lists and a bunch of other algorithms - brilliant for 2% of problems, overkill for the rest.
by sebselassie | 2025-11-04 10:26:39+00:00
Looking for ambitious engineers in Berlin, Germany.

I'm seb, co-founder of telli.com (YC F24)

We're building the AI-native phone system.

We were part of the YC F24 batch and are building in-person in Berlin.

We grew from 0->$2M in annualized revenue in <1 year and right now building the most ambitious engineering team in Europe.

If you want to build AI voice agents that handle millions of conversations - checkout our openings here: https://hi.telli.com/join-us
by throwawayffffas | 2025-11-04 10:27:58+00:00
> Telling a new contributor no thank you is hard.

In life in general having the wherewithal to say no is a superpower. While I appreciate the concern about alienating newcomers, you don't start contributing to an existing project by adding 9k lines of the features you care about. I have not run any open source projects that accept external contributions, but my understanding in general is that you need to demonstrate that you will stick around before being trusted with just adding large features. All code is technical debt, you can't just take on every drive by pull request in hopes they will come back to fix it when it brakes a year down the line.
by adrian_b | 2025-11-04 10:28:01+00:00
You want to say "the minimum that is useful", because you want a resolution at least equal with that, to not see the pixel structure.

A 27" monitor has a height around 17", i.e. about 43 cm, and for watching a movie or anything else where you look at the screen as a whole the recommended viewing distance is twice the screen height, i.e. about 86 cm.

At this distance, the resolution needed to match the human vision is provided by a height of slightly less than 3000 pixels by this study, but by about 3300 pixels by older studies. In these conditions you are right, the minimum acceptable resolution is around 200 ppi.

This means that a 27 inch 5k monitor, with a resolution of 2880 by 5120 pixels, when viewed from a distance twice its height, i.e. about 86 cm (34 inch), provides a resolution close, but slightly less than that of typical human vision. (That viewing distance that is double the height corresponds to the viewing angle of camera lenses with normal focal length, which has been based on studies about the maximum viewing angles where humans are able to perceive a correct perspective when looking at an image as a whole.)

However, when not watching movies, but working with text documents, you normally stay closer to the monitor than that, so even a 5k monitor is not good enough (but an 8k monitor may be enough, so that might be the final monitor resolution, beyond which an increase is useless).
by fhd2 | 2025-11-04 10:28:01+00:00
I'd say you have three options:

1. Reject it on the grounds of being too large to meaningfully review. Whether they used AI or not, this is effectively asking them to start over in an iterative process where you review every version of the thing and get to keep complexity in check. You'll need the right power and/or standing for this to be a reasonable option. At many organisations, you'd get into trouble for it as "blocking progress". If the people that pay you don't value reliability or maintainability, and you couldn't convince them that they should, that's a tough one, but it is how it is.

2. Actually review it in good faith: Takes a ton of time for large, over engineered changes, but as the reviewer, it is usually your job to understand the code and take on responsibility for it. You could propose to help out by addressing any issues you find yourself rather than making them do it, they might like that. This feels like a compromise, but you could still be seen as the person "blocking progress", despite, from my perspective, biting the bullet here.

3. Accept it without understanding it. For this you could _test_ it and give feedback on the behaviour, but you'd ignore the architecture, maintainability etc. You could still collaboratively improve it after it goes live. I've seen this happen to big (non-AI generated) PRs a lot. It's not always a bad thing. It might not be good code, but it could well be good business regardless.

Now, however you resolve it, it seems like this won't be the last time you'll struggle to work with that person. Can, and do they want to, change? Do you want to change? If you can't answer either of these questions with a yes, you'll probably want to look for ways of not working with them going forward.
by i-chuks | 2025-11-04 10:28:29+00:00
> You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes; for this is fraud, and deceit, not skill in the game.

I tend to see rated chess as a battle and therefore all is fair in love and chess.
by dns_snek | 2025-11-04 10:29:42+00:00
That's a motte and bailey fallacy. Nobody said that they aren't useful, the argument is that they can't reason [1]. The world is full of useful tools that can't reason or think in any capacity.

[1] That does not mean that they can never produce texts which describes a valid reasoning process, it means that they can't do so reliably. Sometimes their output can be genius and other times you're left questioning if they even have the reasoning skills of a 1st grader.
by Yizahi | 2025-11-04 10:29:52+00:00
I really wish PC manufacturers didn't kill Insert button. It worked just fine for decades with Ctrl-Ins/Shift-Ins, and in every terminal I've tried. But now the button is missing more and more often (thanks HP, I appreciate useless call and share buttons in its place, which don't work anywhere), and fixes need to be invented for a solved problem.
by gaureshpai | 2025-11-04 10:31:40+00:00
Location: Mangalore, India Remote: Available Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: React.js, Next.js, TypeScript, JavaScript, Java, TailwindCSS, Git, Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eike45I30UA0-rqHIDzd_QEwO0qCwXqO/view?usp=sharing Email: paigauresh@gmail.com

I'm a Full Stack Developer skilled in JavaScript frameworks for building scalable web apps, automation tools, and event platforms. Proficient in the MERN stack and the Next.js ecosystem, I have a proven track record of delivering impactful solutions in dynamic teams. My project experience includes a CPRM prototype, a CLI tool, and a faculty appraisal system.

I'm passionate about applying my problem-solving skills, technical expertise, and agile experience to create meaningful digital experiences. As a former Project Manager at Kreekarvat Technologies, I have experience in leading teams and delivering projects on schedule.

Currently, I'm a Student Developer Champion at UiPath, where I promote automation and engagement initiatives within the academic community. I am also a Core Team Member at DevNation, where I contribute to community web development projects and organize workshops.

I'm always eager to learn and grow, and I thrive in collaborative environments.

GitHub: https://github.com/gaureshpai LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/gaureshpai Portfolio: https://gauresh.is-a.dev
by happymellon | 2025-11-04 10:31:47+00:00
What a weasel way of reframing it.

> it was the Supreme Court who decided on the issue of transwomen being legally interpreted as men in the Equality Act, this was independent of the Government.

Starmer (as it was he who said it, not "official government position") doesn't have to change his position based upon a court ruling that something wasn't clarified enough. They could also say, we still believe that trans-women are women, and we will work to correct this oversight. What actually happened was destroy support for him as he chases voters who would never support him anyway.

> Any law can be framed as oppression on the basis...

Except this is criminalising personal adult activities. We can justify this as a public health issue once the police prosecute ex-prince paedophiles.

Remember that "public health" can be used in all sorts of ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_ban_football_games

> Ladies should not play football... the ladies could also get injuries that destroyed their reproductive organs.

Indeed.
by dctoedt | 2025-11-04 10:33:09+00:00
> The job of banging together reasonably serviceable form of shelter isn't that expensive. It's only expensive if you have to jump through a lot of hoops to use certified designs, materials, etc. deal with inspections, use expensive people for that have had training for wiring things together, etc.

"Reasonably serviceable" — ay, there's the rub!

The U.S. Navy's nuclear propulsion program has a saying: You get what you INspect, not what you EXpect. Certifications, inspections, etc., are meant to try to keep lazy-, sloppy-, and/or dishonest providers from passing off shoddy (or even unacceptable) work product.

In many areas, most customers don't have — and shouldn't have to have — the expertise or the time needed to inspect and assess providers' work product. By requiring knowledgeable inspections in critical areas, we increase the cost a bit, but we improve safety for everyone — which lets us non-experts spend our time more usefully. (It's a form of division of labor.)

To be sure: Certifications, etc., can be captured by industry groups and used to limit competition and increase prices. That's a separate issue, one that can be dealt with in other ways.

Quality — and quality assurance — aren't free.
by geocar | 2025-11-04 10:33:12+00:00
I've experimented a few times with coloring my variables explicitly (using a prefix like R for red, hiding the letters, etc) after playing with colorforth. I agree getting color helps with small shapes, but I think the colors shouldn't be arbitrary: every character Arthur types is a choice about how the code should look, what he is going to need, and what he needs to see at the same time, and it seems like a missed opportunity to turn an important decision about what something is named (or colored) over to a random number generator.
by gommm | 2025-11-04 10:33:52+00:00
I tend to find that for things like this that are really math heavy, it's usually better to create a DSL (or create easily readable function calls, etc) that you can easily write yourself instead of relying on AI to understand math heavy rules. Bonus points, if the rules are in an easily editable format, you can change them easily when they need to. It seems that was the path the author took...

And yes this kind of use-case is exactly where unit tests shine...
by gf000 | 2025-11-04 10:34:01+00:00
That's not a computation, it's a side effect. It just depends on what you wire your "computer" up to. A Turing machine in itself is just a (potentially non-returning) mathematical function, but you are free to map any input/output to it.

Actually, the way LLMs are extended with tools is a pretty much the same (an LLM itself has no access to the internet, but if it returns some specific symbols, the external "glue" will do a search and then the LLM is free to use the results)
by abrezas | 2025-11-04 10:34:12+00:00
pod network | Competitive salary + equity | Remote | Multiple roles

We’re an early stage blockchain startup building the next generation of decentralized financial infrastructure. Our novel architecture provides more than 10x better performance than competitors while completely avoiding any centralised party (or leader) having an edge over other participants, eradicating MEV issues and enabling more fair markets.

Backed by a16z crypto and 1kx.

Hiring: Backend Engineer (with trading systems experience), Business Development Lead, Content & Growth Strategist

Apply here: https://pod.network/hiring