MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mjevans | 2025-11-08 16:30:37+00:00
I forget the term, it might be Dependency Graph.

Hypothetically lets say there's a synchronized quantum every 60 seconds. Order of operations might not matter if transactions within that window do not touch any account referenced by other transactions.

However every withdrawal is also a deposit. If Z withdraws from Y, and Y withdraws from X, and X also withdraws from Z there's a related path.

Order also matters if any account along the chain would reach an 'overdraft' state. The profitable thing for banks to do would be to synchronously deduct the withdrawals first, then apply them to maximize the overdraft fees. A kind thing would be the inverse, assume all payments succeed and then go after the sources. Specifying the order of applied operations, including aborts, in the case of failures is important.
by gumby271 | 2025-11-08 16:31:12+00:00
Right, if we could educate users on the tools they use, and if the trillion dollar companies could provide tools to help community members protect each other, we wouldn't be here. Apple doesn't have to be a dictator if they would help the community support each other. Instead they took the easy way out of stripping freedoms from everyone so they can control every device out there. It's a minor inconvenience to be involved in protecting vulnerable people in our community, it's tragic that people just said Apple should take that role.
by tialaramex | 2025-11-08 16:31:15+00:00
I'm sure I'm not alone - after decades - already knowing far too much about C, so that any article I'm likely to read either I'm like "No, that's wrong and I even understand why you thought that, but it's still wrong" or I just nod along and sigh.

I spent a substantial fraction of my professional career writing C, and I remain interested in WG14 (the language committee) and in several projects written in C though I avoid writing any more of it myself.

The reason it's so widespread is called "Worse is Better" and I believe that has somewhat run its course. If you weren't aware of "Worse is better" a quick Google should find you the original essay on that topic years back.

In contrast when I read an article about say Zig, or Swift, I am more likely to learn something new.

But I can certainly endorse your choice to write about whatever you want - life is too short to try to get a high score somehow.
by CWuestefeld | 2025-11-08 16:31:44+00:00
I guess that gets to what each of us means by "discovery". I think you're talking about the existence of a given artist/track. But for me, with a sufficiently large library, it can be difficult to remember what you have, and what would go well in a given context. So PlexAmp's "discovery" helps me to navigate through that large library to find and re-experience stuff I'd forgotten about or overlooked.
by logankeenan | 2025-11-08 16:31:58+00:00
Using Rust instead of a Go would provide a smaller binary since it doesn't need a runtime. Compared to JavaScript apps, it's not terrible but also not great. One thing WASM has over JS is that it can decode and compile code in parallel across multiple threads as it streams in.

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/01/making-webassembly-even-fa...
by crazygringo | 2025-11-08 16:32:50+00:00
What a weird take. Of course he won't be on the hook. No CEO is personally financially liable for a company's potential losses nor should they be. Otherwise why would anyone ever take any risks?

He doesn't even have a financial interest in the company, apparently. Obviously, the people who will lose their investments if everything goes south is… the investors. As it's supposed to be.

The implied premise of this headline, that somehow there's something wrong with the fact that a CEO won't be personally financially responsible for potential future losses, is truly bizarre.
by marcosdumay | 2025-11-08 16:32:54+00:00
> I'm pretty sure the software I'll be using 10 years from now will be pretty much the same

It will be better, in ways I can't predict. But almost every detail of the interaction will improve somehow. But probably no big changes on the more mature parts.

Oh, and it will have one infuriating thing that people keep doing wrong because everybody insists it's the right way. I'll lose some small functionality for disabling it.

That's how it has ever been.
Show HN: I combine Htmx, LiveView and SolidJS for interactive server components
by phucvin | 2025-11-08 16:34:15+00:00
I like htmx, LiveView, React and Solid. They are great at different points, so I try to combine them in Solv (Stateless Offline-capable LiveView) and write a prototype to show the benefits.

Solv's main idea is that stateless servers keep client's state in a volatile cache. It enables server components that are also interactive, which is best of both worlds between LiveView and htmx. Then fine-grained reactivity is added to achieve efficient DOM updates + minimal payload size.

This provides:

- SSR with close-to-zero rehydration cost.

- No API endpoints, server can just read from DB then render & update clients directly.

- Server components that are interactive.

- Minimal payload for updates from server.

- Stateless servers that can handle stateful-like request/response.

- Avoid consistent connection to server, clients can work offline after page load, update local - state, keep pending server requests and sync later (can also use a sync engine like InstantDB to simplify some part of the page).

Repo: https://github.com/phucvin/solv-03

Demos deployed to: https://solv-03.phucvin.workers.dev/ (this uses a free plan of Cloudflare Workers)

You can also run it yourself online: https://stackblitz.com/~/github.com/phucvin/solv-03

Details:

- Counter 01: simple counter work entirely at client.

- Counter 02: 2 counters; increasing is client-side; reseting is a server action.

- Counter 03: multiple counters; adding a new counter is a server action that also renders the component server-side (note that client handles the loading effect when button is clicked).

More details in the repo.

Thanks for reading, and please let me know if this is a good idea to continue.
by estebank | 2025-11-08 16:34:19+00:00
The US taxes on global income all citizens, even those living abroad. The only way to avoid that is to give up your citizenship, but then you have to pay an exit tax as if you had liquidated your assets. Even if you go to a country with a taxation treaty, you'll still be paying the minimum of the two countries to some country. If the other country taxes you less, you pay the difference to the US.
by JKCalhoun | 2025-11-08 16:34:28+00:00
I agree, we've been moving the goal posts. I think that the Turing Test was the first casualty of LLM ascendency.

But I also think it's natural to move the goal posts.

We try to peer at the future and what would convince us of machine intelligence. Academia finally delivers and we have to revise what we mean by intelligence.

If one, settling a pillow by her head,

Should say: "That is not what I meant at all;

That is not it, at all."
by IAmGraydon | 2025-11-08 16:34:36+00:00
How many actual AI researchers from one of the big AI companies do we have here? I ask because they always seem to be extremely quiet, but I believe there is no way you could be involved in the development of LLMs on a deep level and not understand at this point that the entire thing is a scam. LLMs are very much like a magic trick - they seem truly miraculously to those who don’t understand how the trick is done. But those who designed the trick certainly know it’s deception. They’ve done enough research by this point to see that it’s not intelligent at all, but generates a very good illusion of intelligence by returning text that seems very similar to human output (because that’s what it was trained on).

Useful? Yep - it’s like the best autocomplete you could ever imagine. Paradigm-changing even, as we now have a big chunk of human knowledge in a much more easily searchable format. It’s just not intelligent.

I have to imagine that just like a magic trick, eventually someone will come up with a way to clearly communicate to the layperson how the trick is done. At that point, the illusion collapses.
by terminalshort | 2025-11-08 16:34:48+00:00
This is no different than the current ATC system. A plane or tower can lose power too. It's not particularly hard for the software to detect a plane that isn't in communication with the rest of the swarm / not obeying commands, assign it highest priority and GTFO of its way. The key is to have the software running on all planes (which you can do with commercial aviation) rather than rely on a centralized system with a single point of failure.
by CWuestefeld | 2025-11-08 16:36:18+00:00
Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law

Comments like this always seem to lead to calls to give the government greater power to rein in those companies.

I'm not claiming these abuses don't exist. But there's no reason not to also look at them as the government getting a lot better at taking advantage of companies, to protect their offices. If you look at it in this context, it should be clear that increasing regulatory authority is far from a solution: it's actually counter-productive, creating tools to facilitate ever-greater abuses.
by yorwba | 2025-11-08 16:36:26+00:00
Synthetic data doesn't have to come from an LLM. And that paper only showed that if you train on a random sample from an LLM, the resulting second LLM is a worse model of the distribution that the first LLM was trained on. When people construct synthetic data with LLMs, they typically do not just sample at random, but carefully shape the generation process to match the target task better than the original training distribution.
by PeterStuer | 2025-11-08 16:37:05+00:00
Even today's frontier models, without any further improvement, have incredible commercial potential. And even when improvements have diminisching returns in terms of result, the market shifts towards improved models in a supralinear fashion. So a linear improvement resulting from exponential investment might still net you exponential commercial return.

Also, the LLM space is a red queen environment. Stop investing and you are done.

All that said. IMHO Short to medium term breakthrouhgs will come from hybrid AI systems, the LLM being the universal putty between all users and systems.
by dboreham | 2025-11-08 16:37:11+00:00
Historically big AI skeptic here: what you say is very not true now. LLMs aren't just regurgitating their training data per se. I've used LLMs on languages the LLM has not seen, and it performed well. I've used LLMs on code that is about as far from a React todo app as it's possible to get.
by pxc | 2025-11-08 16:37:19+00:00
> I'm worried LLMs will make people ignore what's already there and auto generate useless functions instead of using what's there in Ruby/Rails.

I think you're probably right. But fwiw, as a non-Rubyist who values good style and is recently working in a one-off Ruby codebase, I've found it easy to use LLMs to write Ruby code that is idiomatic and leverages built-ins well. I use ChatGPT 5 Thinking for this, and I don't let it generate any code that I use directly. I ask it about ways to do things, including stuff built-in to the stdlib, and sometimes have it generate 3 or 4 implementations. Then I compare them, consult the language docs or stdlib API docs or the pickaxe book, and choose what seems the most stylish or composable. I then write it out by hand, bearing in mind what I just learned, and see what Rubocop has to say about its style.

I wouldn't say LLMs have been essential in this, but they've been pretty convenient. Because Ruby has relatively a lot of special syntax, it's also nice to be able to inquire directly about the meaning of some syntax in a bit of generated code-- especially when it involves characters that are (for some reason) ungoogleable, like an ampersand.

I think people who use LLMs to generate code and people that embrace agentic coding AIs and "vibe coding" will absolutely fall into the pattern you describe. But RTFMers and developers who care about craftsmanship will probably use LLMs as another discovery mechanisms for the stdlib, popular Gems, and popular style conventions.
by dangus | 2025-11-08 16:37:34+00:00
Oh you have mistaken me greatly.

This isn’t a liberal/conservative thing.

This is a class conflict thing.

The rich are stupid, just like everyone else. That in itself goes against the narrative that has been woven in our corporate mass media, the accepted narrative that makes it seem as though the rich are meritous and deserve to hoard wealth.

This illusion is why CEOs will never be held accountable for their actions. Shareholders are part of the pyramid scheme feeding everyone on the very top. Failures of the visionary founder CEO are like failures of Kim Jong Un: certainly not their fault! Your undying support as a shareholder is required to right the ship. Your lack of faith is what caused the failure in the first place.

Of course I haven’t out-earned them, I don’t have an army of accountants and lawyers working due me to dodge taxes and avoid complying with laws, access to private equity investment, insider trading knowledge, and all of my income is W2, so my tax rate is about 4x higher than any billionaire.
by BeFlatXIII | 2025-11-08 16:37:40+00:00
> then take their sweet time getting up to the limit (and then beyond) after a green

I know this is bad for my fuel/electric efficiency, but I enjoy being the first car at the stop bar during a red light because of this. Means I can accelerate faster and merge lanes without waiting for other drivers to make a spot, even if those other cars ultimately end up passing me a mile later.
by HighGoldstein | 2025-11-08 16:38:08+00:00
> They might sell more Windows 11 if it ran on more hardware. How does this make them money?

Given the free Win 7/8->10->11 upgrade path, almost every end user who'd want a Windows license probably already has one. This leaves enterprise licensing and computer manufacturers (laptops, mini-PCs, desktops), who wouldn't care about this because they'll have newer hardware anyway.
by quinns_tech | 2025-11-08 16:39:38+00:00
Hey HN!

Built this to solve chip count disputes at my weekly poker night. It's a simple web app for tracking chip stacks with real-time P2P multiplayer sync. Tech stack: - Vanilla JS (no frameworks, ~25KB total) - PeerJS for WebRTC P2P connections - Service worker for offline support - Hosted on GitHub Pages (costs $0) Why no backend? Wanted zero operational cost and liked the challenge of doing state sync purely P2P. All devices connect directly to each other - no server in the middle.
by tamnd | 2025-11-08 16:40:02+00:00
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I have never deployed any production C code and I would not choose C for professional work either, but learning it, with all its rough edges, has made me a better engineer. It helps me understand how things really work under the hood. No pain, no gain.

Maybe I am biased, but for professional work, I stay with Go. I have built large distributed data systems that handle hundreds of millions of business transactions daily, and Go has been steady and reliable for that scale. Its simplicity, strong concurrency model, and easy deployment make it practical for production systems. I still enjoy exploring Zig and Rust in my spare time, but for shipping real systems, Go continues to get the job done without getting in the way.
by zamadatix | 2025-11-08 16:40:10+00:00
Hmm, maybe it depends on the specific test and reasoning in it? I certainly think reasoning how and when to use allowed tools and when not to is a big part of the reasoning and verification process E.g. most human math scores allow for a pen and paper calculation, or even a calculator, and that can be a great way to say spot check a symbolic derivative and see it needs to be revisited without relying on the calculator/paper to do the actual reasoning for the testee. Or to see the equation for motion of a system can't possibly have been right with some test values (without which I'm not sure I'd have passed my mid level physics course haha).

At the very least, the scores for benchmarking a human on such a test with and without tools would be different to comparing an LLM without the analogous constraints. Which is (IMO) a useful note in comparing reasoning abilities and why I thought it was interesting to note this kind of testing is just called testing with tools on the LLM side (not sure there is an equally as standard term on the human testing side? Guess the same could be used for both though).

At the same time I'm sure other reasoning tests don't gain much from/expect use of tools at all. So it wouldn't be relevant for those reasoning tests.
by pahae | 2025-11-08 16:40:55+00:00
I wish the big providers would offer some sort of trial period where you can evaluate models in a _realistic_ setting yourself (i.e cli tools or IDE integrations). I wouldn't even mind strict limits -- just give me two hours or so of usage and I'd already be happy. Seriously.

My use-case is probably pretty far from the usual tasks: I'm currently implementing a full observability platform based on VictoriaMetrics / Victorialogs + Grafana. It's quite elaborate and has practically no overlap with the usual/cloud solutions you find out there. For example, it uses an authenticated query stack: I use the Grafana oauth token to authenticate queries by injecting matchers via prom-label-proxy and forward that to promxy for fan-out to different datasources (using the label filter to only query some datasources). The IaC stuff is also not mainstream as I'm not using any of the big cloud providers, but the provider I use nonetheless has a terraform provider.

As you can imagine, there's probably not much training data for most of this, so quality of the responses varies widely. From my experience so far Claude (Sonnet 4.5 ) does a _much_ better job than GTP-5 (Codex or normal) with the day-to-day task. Stuff like keeping documentation up to date, spotting inconsistencies, helping me find blind spots in the Alerting rules, etc. It also seems to do better working with provided documentation / links.

I've been using Claude for a couple of weeks now but recently switched to codex after my subscription to Claude ran out. I was really curious after reading a lot of good things about it but I gotta say, so far, I'm not impressed. Compared to Claude it gives wrong answers much more frequently (at least in this domain). The results it produces take much more effort to clean up than Claude's. Probably on a level where I could just invest the time myself. Might be that I do not yet know how to correctly prompt GPT but giving both tools the same prompt, Claude does a better job 90% of the time.

Anyway, I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that the quality of responses "off the beaten track" varies widely and is worth testing several models with. Especially if your work is not 70+% of coding. Even then I guess that many benchmarks have seized being useful by now?
by yawnxyz | 2025-11-08 16:41:24+00:00
we try to make benchmarks for users, but it's like that 20% article - different people want different 20% and you just end up adding "features" and whackamoling the different kinds of 20%

if a single benchmark could be a universal truth, and it was easy to figure out how to do it, everyone would love that.. but that's why we're in the state we're in right now
by terminalshort | 2025-11-08 16:42:04+00:00
Can emit all bytes except for 00000101 isn't really the type of problem you see in a digital system. And even if it were, it's pretty simple.

plane 1 > assign code 4563

plane 2 > reject

plane 1 > assign code 0827

plane 2 > accept

Also assigning short codes like that isn't something likely to be necessary in an automated protocol like this. Why not just have every message sent between 2 planes include a sender_id: UUID header?
by metadope | 2025-11-08 16:42:16+00:00
Agreed. The speculation is telling and reflects on the speculators more than reflecting a reality we understand. No one knows what will happen next.

I remember the days when Facebook and Google and other familiar giants were painted with the same brush-- all negative speculation as to them being overvalued and on the cliff's edge of doom, because no one could imagine how they'd survive their obscene overvaluations. How and when will they monetize? How will they ever bring in enough revenue to justify the insane capital spending?
by jt2190 | 2025-11-08 16:43:26+00:00
Yes, many of us are investing in this (even indirectly) and may not realize it! The same rules still apply for municipal and state treasuries though: Only a small percentage of the overall portfolio should be allocated to high-risk investments.

Power generation, power grids are more generally useful today and less speculative than trying to win the AI race, so the risk for those types of things is somewhat lower, but there IS risk even in those.
by tamnd | 2025-11-08 16:43:49+00:00
> I'm sure I'm not alone - after decades - already knowing far too much about C, so that any article I'm likely to read either I'm like "No, that's wrong and I even understand why you thought that, but it's still wrong" or I just nod along and sigh.

If you have some spare time, I would really like to hear more about your experiences. It sounds like you have worked with C for a long time, and that kind of insight is hard to find now.

Most people around me started with JavaScript or TypeScript as their first language, and for many, that is still all they know. I mean no disrespect, it is just how things are today. It would be great to hear how your view of programming has changed over the years and what lessons from C still matter in your work today.
by bgwalter | 2025-11-08 16:44:35+00:00
The alternative interpretation of the approval of Musk's pay package is that the stakeholders know the goals are unrealistic, but they want to keep the hype going in order to exit quietly.

The Optimus narrative is so obviously a fraud. The things can "dance" and play chess, but they cannot operate in dirt, scrub the kitchen, etc. Even if they succeed, BYD will build a $7000 Optimus. Intimidation of crowds and barking orders at humans (for example for the human to clean the kitchen floor) seem the only somewhat realistic goals.
by pron | 2025-11-08 16:45:04+00:00
Partial evaluation has been quite well known at least since 1943 and Kleene's Smn proof. It has since been put to use, in various forms, by quite a few languages (including C++ in 1990, and even C in the early seventies). But the extent and the way in which Zig specifically puts it to use -- which includes, but is not limited to, how it is used to replace other features that can then be avoided (and all without macros) -- is unprecedented.

Pointing out that other languages have used partial evaluation, sometimes even in ways that somewhat overlap with Zig's use, completely misses the point. It's at least as misplaced as saying that there was nothing new or special about iPhone's no-buttons design because touch screens had existed since the sixties.

If you think Zig's comptime is just about running some computations at compile time, you should take a closer look.
by Fabricio20 | 2025-11-08 16:45:39+00:00
Dual booting is the worst possible combination, given that any windows update will kill the linux bootloader (major update to be fair, but it will happen and then you have to recovery iso to fix the bootloader every time). Plus having to disable all boot optimizations on the windows side because of tainted filesystem that linux can't figure out without risk of data destruction. I'd rather just use a VM - but the same games that don't run on linux also dont want you playing in a VM.