MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by petersellers | 2025-11-27 07:01:39+00:00
> Yes, he did. It is funny.

Yeah, it’s hilarious! Calling someone a monkey is such a clever and thought provoking insult!

> I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it

If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

> When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist.

I really don’t think you know why CoC’s exist, because you are chastising people when they point out a legitimate violation (e.g. being the "morality police").

> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point

Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

> If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them

No thank you. I’m not actually offended by what he said, I just find it weird when people rush to his defense on this.
by thesmtsolver | 2025-11-27 07:02:27+00:00
There is nothing inherently difficult about practical implementations of continuous numbers for automated reasoning compared to more discrete mathematical structures. They are handleable by standard FOL itself.

See ACL2's support for floating point arithmetic.

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~moore/publications/double-float.p...

SMT solvers also support real number theories:

https://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/papers/nfm2019-draft.pdf

Z3 also supports real theories:

https://smt-lib.org/theories-Reals.shtml
by alganet | 2025-11-27 07:03:18+00:00
I think this boilerplate thing got lost in translation some time ago.

We dislike _the presence_ of boilerplate, not the time spent writing it. If another thing writes it for you, it implies that _now boilerplate exists_, and it sucks.

It makes me unhappy when it exists. It makes me unhappy if it appears in seconds.

That said, there is some potential for using AI to reduce boilerplate and help create more meaningful software. However, that is definitely not the way things are shaping out to be.
by menaerus | 2025-11-27 07:03:25+00:00
> LLMs tend to include subtle mistakes or even completely incorrect information (and reasoning!) which disrupts this process.

You see, so many humans do that as well but yet we make it believe that LLMs are somehow special here. Yes, they make mistakes, we make mistakes, I make mistakes, your colleague makes mistakes, but that's not the point of this discussion at all and it's a form of confirmation bias.

Why this reflex gag happens, I think, is because people are biased to catch somebody in making the mistake so that they can feel superior and irreplaceable. We do that to keep our position strong (in society, work), and this is completely natural - it's called the survival instinct, and it is present in our species regardless of LLMs. LLMs are just one of the ways we can obviously trigger this condition.

So, your response is no more special than other people combating the AI but take into account that "The problems I work on are not well-represented in training data" or "correctness matters far more than speed" or "it's important to form strong and correct mental models of complex systems so I can reason about them well" makes a great deal of strong assumptions. Almost any domain can literally copy-paste this into their defense, and this is also something interesting I observed through the course of years - every domain I worked in, and there were plenty, each domain thought that it is their domain which is the "hardest". Vanity.
by kragen | 2025-11-27 07:04:10+00:00
I'm curious about how you'd do that, too. I haven't tried doing anything like that, but I'd think you'd start by trying to formalize the usual optimality proof for the Kalman filter, transfer it to actual program logic on the assumption that the program manipulates real numbers, try to get the proof to work on floating-point numbers, and finally extract the program from the proof to run it.

https://youtu.be/_LjN3UclYzU has a different attempt to formalize Kalman filters which I think we can all agree was not a successful formalization.
by zzo38computer | 2025-11-27 07:04:28+00:00
At first, I disagree that the label should be removed (but see my comments below for more nuances about this; it is not as simple as it might seem). However, if they have no way to know if it is made with AI, that is different, although they should ask whoever made the game and put it there, it if they do not know. It is not only about plagiarism, though; at least, to me it isn't mostly about plagiarism.

Epic Games Store does not have to add a label that it is made with AI if Tim Sweeney thinks it is better to not have such a label, but I think it might be better for Steam to keep the label if that is what the Steam believes they should have.

> It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.

I would not be so sure. However, there are multiple kind of AI as well as multiple cases where it may be used. Depending on the specific case, it might not be a problem, but that does not necessarily mean that the label should be removed, either, although it might mean that there is the nuances to be mentioned. For example, is it LLMs? Is it precalculated, or dynamic at run time? Can it be disabled? What parts use this AI? etc. It is complicated, and I do not know what to do about it.
by antics | 2025-11-27 07:04:30+00:00
> Unfortunately, when it sold out to Microsoft, the clock started ticking. “Please just give me 5 years before everything goes to shit,” I thought to myself. And here we are, 7 years later, living on borrowed time.

Man, sometimes I feel like I live on a different planet. I have been using GitHub since 2010 and—while I really wish I had a nicer way of putting this—I cannot remember a time when all of the flagship products were not uniformly either worst-in-class or close to it. Code review/PRs, issues, code search, CI, a real enterprise offering, and now AI features: all of these offerings had gaps serious enough to instigate real, threatening upstarts, and some of those upstarts were themselves big enough to become public companies. Seriously. A viable path to IPO from 2013 to (say) 2019 was literally "make a version of a GitHub feature that simply does not suck."

I loved GitHub in 2010. I also remember those years, 2013 to 2019, being essentially totally lost, with no meaningful product movement at all. Am I truly alone in this? What is this Andrew talking about here?

I'm not going to defend the Microsoft acquisition, but at least—excruciatingly slowly—things like code review and issues are finally starting to receive features. It's crazy to say it out loud but that is what I see.

I just can't help but think the product "enshittification" narrative here is an ex post justification of the author's own feelings.
by throwawaymaths | 2025-11-27 07:06:30+00:00
coc says this:

> This document contains the rules that govern these spaces only:

> The ziglang organization on Codeberg

> #zig IRC channel on Libera.chat

> Zig project development Zulip chat

doesnt seem to include the zig page!!

so no, it does not violate CoC
by magicalhippo | 2025-11-27 07:06:58+00:00
You can run it with much less. I don't recall the bare minimum but with a bit of tweaking 2GB should be plenty[1].

I recall reading some running it on a 512MB system, but that was a while ago so not sure if you can still go that low.

Performance can suffer though, for example low memory will limit the size of the transaction groups. So for decent performance you will want 8GB or more depending on workloads.

[1]: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Project%20and%20Commu...
by sroerick | 2025-11-27 07:07:17+00:00
It literally just takes a string, formats it as an org entry, and then appends it to an 'incoming.org' file on my remote.

Then I can access the incoming.org file and org-refile entries at will.

Usage is just 'note "note text"'. this is generally how I process notes in org - I collect things in an inbox and them I elaborate on them, then refile them into a fully fledged note or the appropriate context.

Its dead simple, but comfy for my workflows and solves the problem of "collecting notes from mobile" without trying to struggle session mobile Emacs or Org mode
by QuiEgo | 2025-11-27 07:07:34+00:00
Tesla has its problems (between 2019 and 2024 the auto headlights and auto wipers were borderline unusable, now they are merely tolerable, and autopilot is a whole story on it's own), but maintenance is not one of Tesla's issues.

Useable, human-readable errors in the app/touch screen (the car self diagnosed it's 12V battery problem and told me to call a tech) and mobile service is just an awesome experience.
by thorn | 2025-11-27 07:07:43+00:00
Ah. I remember that guy. Joel. He sold his poker server and bragged around HN long time ago. He is too much of PR stunt guy recently. Unfortunately AI does not lead to people being nice in the end. The way people abuse other people using AI is crazy. Kudos to ocaml owners giving him a proper f-off but polite response.
by flowerthoughts | 2025-11-27 07:08:42+00:00
You're moving the goal posts. Your assertion was that viruses don't last long outside the body. GP shot down that argument. You have not refuted their argument.

Even without being that strict about the discussion, I think GP was making the point that viruses can survive for many days, so stating that "you'd only be exposed to viruses from people you already share a room (or even bed) with." is an argument that requires some elaboration.
by Ozzie_osman | 2025-11-27 07:09:05+00:00
An alternative is to view the AI agent as a new developer on your team. If existing guidance + one-shot doesn't work, revisit the documentation and guidance (ie dotMD file), see what's missing, improve it, and try again. Like telling a new engineer "actually, here is how we do this thing". The engineer learns and next time gets it right.

I don't do MCPs much because of effort and security risks. But I find the loop above really effective. The alternative (one-shot or ignore) would be like hiring someone, then if they get it wrong, telling them "I'll do it myself" (or firing them)... But to each his own (and yes, AI are not human).
by bsder | 2025-11-27 07:09:16+00:00
And if he cleaned it up, an even larger number of people would be calling it written with AI.

Shrug.

If he were berating a specific person, I might flag it. Berating Github and Microsoft as an organization? Nah.

Given that CEOs seem to now live in a Post Shame Reality(tm), I'll allow bringing some shame to the situation.
by blackcatsec | 2025-11-27 07:09:41+00:00
I'm not reading this whole thread, but based on the title I figured it kind of boiled down to name calling bullshit by more open source maintainers.

Folks, we have to stop this bullshit. NOBODY is perfect. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. It IS entirely possible that some script thing was written by an intern and it doesn't quite work right. That's possible. Does that make them a shitty intern?

As I've told others, and try to tell others, empathy is super important in the tech field. As a fellow autistic person who used to be this way towards other people, I find it equally as jarring now and completely turns me off to listening to whatever that person has to say when they make posts like this.

Give people some grace, make fixes, move on with your life. That's the beauty of OSS development. Submit some patches, reach out to maintainers, open a dialog, have good conversation. Don't just shit all over someone for the sake of doing so even if they are doing something "stupid".

I promise you we will ALL be better for it.
by delta_p_delta_x | 2025-11-27 07:09:47+00:00
Lots of people labouring under weak and old stereotypes here...

I wonder what people would think if I said that about London, if I only visited central London and said 'it feels like a tourist trap'. London is huge, as is Singapore (for a city, it's pretty big— it has a larger population than all of the Baltics and the Nordic except Sweden).
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-27 07:09:49+00:00
> If that is how you feel, why are you spending multiple comments defending the language used?

I don't care much about the language used. I neither intend to defend it nor criticize it. But I do care about people trying to be morality police. That's why I am spending multiple comments here.

> It feels like there’s a reason you refuse to define your line in the sand.

Yes, the reason is that my line applies to myself. My line doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to Andrew. So my line, which is a personal and private matter for me, isn't something I want to share here. It is irrelevant when talking about the words Andrew chose on his website. That's the reason. It's a simple reason. Don't overthink it!
by Quothling | 2025-11-27 07:10:04+00:00
Who are people? People in USA? Where I live it's frankly a positive if you're on a different base than github. SQLite seems to manage fine without github, so I'm not sure why you think Zig isn't going to be. That being said I don't necessarily disagree with your position on maturity, SQLite has an official github mirror after all. Even if you don't want to bother with that there are a lot of ways to write about it without calling people monkeys.
by aeonfox | 2025-11-27 07:10:05+00:00
> Isn't that an accurate definition of what "loser" generally means?

"Loser" is a catch-all taunt that bypasses empathy. But certainly they might be 'in a losing situation', which is an important distinction.

> Except for the "disabilities" part, which is problematic to classify

Disability in this context is something intrinsic to the person (e.g., physically, mentally) that makes the employment process substantially difficult to engage with.

In addition to disability, difficulty can also arise do to any prejudice that might be levelled against them (e.g., ageism, sexism, junior vs senior, skin color, language skills, country of origin), as well as visa consideration, financial situation, etc. There's so many things that affect the risk calculus of changing jobs.
by Tor3 | 2025-11-27 07:10:06+00:00
Some years ago I stayed in a hotel outside London, and they apparently had a policy of saving as much as possible on soap bars.. so they used some horrible high-pH soap, very cheap looking. But it was nearly impossible to rinse it off.. took me fifteen minutes of hot water usage after I was, or should have been done with the shower. Whatever they saved in soap they lost many times over in water and even more in energy use.

And in a tourist place on an island farther south the room had an information binder which also asked that you shouldn't waste water as there weren't many natural resources for water there. However, the hot water came from the far end of the narrow, rectangular-shaped long hotel, and the pipes were outside and weren't insulated, they were completely bare. Whenever you turned off the hot water for a few minutes it would take some five minutes to get it back, water running, as the pipes got cold right away (there are many other usages for hot water than just using the shower - the rooms had kitchens). So of course all the guests used many times more water than they would have needed, not to mention the wasted heat. Totally baffling.
by aetherspawn | 2025-11-27 07:10:17+00:00
Obligatory comment every time one of these threads comes up that Synology, sure, the hardware is a bit dated but… as far as set and forget goes:

I’ve run multiple Synology NAS at home, business, etc. and you can literally forget that it’s not someone else’s cloud. It auto updates on Sundays, always comes online again, and you can go for years (in one case, nearly a decade) without even logging into the admin and it just hums along and works.
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-27 07:11:09+00:00
> If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

I'm not confused by anything. That was a rhetorical question. I continue to respond because there are other things that I care about and I have things to say about that. I don't care about what style or tone or words Andrew choses on their website. But I care about people trying to be morality police and discouraging someone blogging on their own website from writing rudely and writing politically incorrectly. So that's why I continue to respond.

> Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Credit where credit is due. If you make good points I agree with, I'll certainly say that.

> Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

Because there are other points of yours I don't agree with.

Must a person always 100% agree or 100% disagree? Can a person not 10% agree and 90% disagree? The latter is happening here.
by bird0861 | 2025-11-27 07:12:06+00:00
I can't emphasize this enough, it doesn't matter how good a model is or what CLI I'm using, use git and chroot (at the least, container is easier though).

Always make the agent write a plan first and save it to something like plan.md, and tell it to update the list of finished tasks in status.md as it finishes each task from plan.md and to let you review the change before proceeding to next task.
by hellofriend_ | 2025-11-27 07:14:21+00:00
Look, the leap from “a human in a lab coat mixed some chemicals and got something that grows and divides” to “therefore no God (or no transcendent intelligence) is necessary for life to exist”

is not a valid inference. It is a category error dressed up as science.

Demonstrating that intelligence can produce life (or a lifelike system) is the opposite of demonstrating that intelligence is not required. It is literally evidence in favor of the design hypothesis, not against it. The only thing it would rule out is a very narrow version of young-earth creationism that says “God would never let any natural process produce life under any circumstance”.

Also, scaling from “possible on a planet” to “therefore no intelligence was required anywhere in the process” is still the same non sequitur, moving the (apparent) design from the origin of the first cell to the origin of the cosmic initial conditions and laws that permit planetary abiogenesis.

This equation of “intelligent design = creationism = Adam and Eve” is a cultural artifact of the American culture wars, not a reflection of logic or the global scientific community.
by ttiurani | 2025-11-27 07:14:56+00:00
Looking at these comments, it's painfully apparent how many think that being polite in your communication is more important than actually doing something.

I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion.

And don't even get me started with the people who come in here just to point out that Codeberg isn't perfect either.
by recursivecaveat | 2025-11-27 07:15:48+00:00
The spreadsheet in the follow up post gives the slightly rephrased "Procedures for purposes other than remedying health state". I think you're right, possibly including preventative surgeries as well.

My personal favorite would be the amusingly bureaucratic "Acquired absence of organs, not elsewhere classified". I'm also curious how 14 people were admitted as "victim of volcanic eruption" in England.
by fhd2 | 2025-11-27 07:16:24+00:00
It would be if demand was limited. Let's assume the people already have enough food, and the population is not growing - that was my premise. Through innovation, one farmer can grow more than all the others.

Since there already was enough food, the market is saturated, so it would effectively reduce the price of all food. This would change the ratio so that the farmer who grows more gets more money in total, and every other farmer gets a bit less.

As long as there is any sort of growth involved - more people, more appetite, whatever, it would be value creation. But without growth, it's not.

At least not in the economical sense. Saving resources and effort that goes into producing things is great for society, on paper. But with the economic system that got us this far, we have no real mechanism for distributing the gains. So we get over supplying producers fighting over limited demand.

The world is several orders of magnitude more complex than that example, of course. But that's the basic idea.

That said, I'm not exactly an economist, and considering it's a bleak opinion to hold, I'd like to learn something based on which I could change it.
by kajika91 | 2025-11-27 07:16:43+00:00
This is a very good move, using more open technology benefits everyone in the long run.

Aside from the bitter words against Github (and I read comments here forgetting about the very real consequences with people lives like collaboration with ICE), using codeberg is using Forgejo : those technology are by us and for us. Unlike Github we can run our own if necessary and all the technology (actions and such) can be improved and be shared between us.

An other benefit of Forgejo/Codeberg is the absence of pushing for paying more, Github is not free and lives of users going to Azure/Gemini or other Mircrosoft services. There are many parts that are made/changed to nudge people into paying more and more and be vendor-locked.

I like my life to have the fewest dark patterns as possible and Coderberg is extremely helpful.
by zzo38computer | 2025-11-27 07:17:33+00:00
> You can determine user's language from IP address location.

There are reasons why it might not work (VPN is only one of them; there are others such as places with multiple languages, people traveling to foreign countries, and others), although it is also a bad idea for other reasons as well.

If the user specifies the language then you should use that one. I think it would probably be better to use the following order of figuring out which language you should want:

1. If the URL specifies the language to use, then use the language specified by the URL.

2. If the language is not specified by the URL, use the language specified by any cookies that are set for the purpose of selecting the language.

3. If the language is not specified by URL or cookies, but the user is logged in and the user account has a language setting, use the language specified by the user account. (If TLS client authentication is being used, then you might consider adding an extension into the client's X.509 certificate to select the language.)

4. If the language is not specified by URL or cookies or the user's account, or the user is not logged in, use the Accept-Language header.

5. If the language is not specified by URL or cookies or the user's account, or the user is not logged in, or the Accept-Language header is not present or cannot be parsed or does not specify any language that the request file is available in, then use the default, such as the language that it was originally written in.
by Quothling | 2025-11-27 07:18:00+00:00
I don't like Azure DevOps or it's pipelines (the yaml ones, not the classic drag and drop that is now disabled by default), but I like it a lot more than github actions. I doubt we'd ever really use github actions for security reasons, but I do prefer the explicit behaviors and templating with structure with azure compared to how Github Actions tries to solve change management with digitalisation. I can totally see why github actions would make more sense if you don't have enterprise organisation type AD/Entra + Azure though.
Ask HN: Ever done large contract work?
by ripped_britches | 2025-11-27 07:19:05+00:00
I have only ever worked at FAANG-like SWE jobs. But I recently realized there are hundreds of RFPs for public and private organizations that pay $100k-$5m for seemingly straightforward software projects. I’m sure there is a lot more to the bidding, PM-ing, and more - but isn’t this a much better deal than the soul-crushing FAANG grind? Or tell me I’m wrong.