MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tetha | 2025-11-10 21:15:26+00:00
Personally, I find it faster if I use LLMs for the use cases I've found them to work well.

One example is just laborious typing-heavy stuff. Like I recently needed a table converted to an enumeration. 5 years ago I'd have spent half a day to figure out a way to sed/awk/perl that transformation. Now I can entertain an AI for half an hour or so to either do the transformation (which is easy to verify) or to setup a transformation script.

Or I enjoy that I can give an LLM a problem and 2-3 solution approaches I'd see, and get back 4-5 examples on how that code would look like in those solution approaches, and some more. Again, this would take me 1-2 days and I might not see some of the more creative approaches. Those approaches might also be entire nonsense, mind you.

But generating large amounts of code just won't be a good, time-efficient idea long-term if you have to support and change it. A lot of our code base is rather simple python, but it carries a lot of reasoning and thought behind it. Writing that code is not a bottleneck at all.
by aseipp | 2025-11-10 21:16:34+00:00
Unfortunately comparing tok/sec right now in a vacuum and especially across weeks of time is kind of pointless. Everything is still evolving; there were patches within days that bumped GB10 performance by double digit percentiles in some frameworks. You just kind of have to accept things are a moving target.

For comparison, as of right now, I can run GPT-OSS 120b @ 59 tok/sec, using llama.cpp (revision 395e286bc) and Unsloth dynamic 4-bit quantized models.[1] GPT-OSS 20b @ 88 tok/sec [2]. The MXFP4 variant comes in the same, at ~89 tok/sec[3]. It's probably faster on other frameworks, llama.cpp is known to not be the fastest. I don't know what LM Studio backend they used. All of these numbers put the GB10 well ahead of Strix Halo, if only going by the numbers we see here.

If the AMD software wasn't also comparatively optimized by the same amount in the same timeframe, then the GB10 would be faster, now. Maybe it was optimized just as much; I don't have a Strix Halo part to compare. But my point is, don't just compare numbers from two various points in time, it's going to be very misleading.

[1]: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/gpt-oss-120b-GGUF/tree/main/U... [2]: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/gpt-oss-20b-GGUF/resolve/main... [3]: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/gpt-oss-20b-GGUF/resolve/main...
by xorcist | 2025-11-10 21:16:42+00:00
Scale? At what "scale" runs Linux, perhaps the most well known monolith software ever?

(And also the subject of perhaps the most well studied flamew^Wdiscussion about mono- versus microservice architecture.)

It only runs most of all servers and most of all the mobile terminals in the world. Where is that distant higher end, where microservices unlock colossal scale, exactly?

Architecture matters. Just not always the way you think. But it serves as catnip for everyone who loves a good debate. Anyone who gets tired of writing code can always make a good living writing about software architecture. And good for them. There's a certain artistry to it, and they have diagrams and everything.
by getnormality | 2025-11-10 21:16:49+00:00
This dynamic reminds me of an experience I had a year ago, when I went down a Reddit rabbit hole related to vitamins and supplements. Every individual in a supplement discussion has a completely different supplement cocktail that they swear by. No consensus ever seems to be reached about what treatment works for what problem, or how any given individual can know what's right for them. You're just supposed to keep trying different stuff until something supposedly works. One must exquisitely adjust not only the supplements themselves, but the dosage and frequency, and a bit of B might be needed to cancel out a side effect of A, except when you feel this way you should do this other thing, etc etc etc.

I eventually wrote the whole thing off as mostly one giant choose-your-own-adventure placebo effect. There is no end to the epicycles you can add to "perfect" your personal system.
by zahlman | 2025-11-10 21:17:00+00:00
> Because if not, it's worthless philosophical drivel.

The feeling is mutual:

> ... that doesn't bode well for human intelligence being unique or exceptional in any way.

My guess was that you argued that we "don't understand" these systems, or that our incomplete analysis matters, specifically to justify the possibility that they are in whatever sense "intelligent". And now you are making that explicit.

If you think that intelligence is well-defined enough, and the definition agreed-upon enough, to argue along these lines, the sophistry is yours.

> If it can't be defined, let alone measured

In fact, we can measure things (like "intelligence") without being able to define them. We can generally agree that a person of higher IQ has been measured to be more intelligent than a person of lower IQ, even without agreeing on what was actually measured. Measurement can be indirect; we only need accept that performance on tasks on an IQ test correlates with intelligence, not necessarily that the tasks demonstrate or represent intelligence.

And similarly, based on our individual understanding of the concept of "intelligence", we may conclude that IQ test results may not be probative in specific cases, or that administering such a test is inappropriate in specific cases.
by paganel | 2025-11-10 21:17:01+00:00
I think I do, as in I'm pretty sure I've never ever voted for this European Commission thing, neither has any other EU citizen that I know of, and yet they're running the whole show here in Europe. If if walks and quacks like a duck it most certainly is a duck. Granted, they don't have North Korea's interesting military parades, I'll give them that.

Later edit: I think you might me on the wrong understanding path by the so-called "democratic deficit" expression that is often-times used when referring to decision-making inside the EU (and hence to the European Commission, its executive arm), I think "dictatorship" does a much better job of telling things for what they really are.
by hansvm | 2025-11-10 21:17:07+00:00
Yeah, it's right up there with the rest of the shady business practices.

Delta, for example, charges more physical cash for a cash+miles ticket than for a pure cash ticket (every time I've been inclined to try to use miles over the last few years anyway). I get that they maybe don't meet the legal barrier for fraud, but even a child can see that it's unethical.

Toss in the seat-selection UI (strongly suggesting you have to select a seat if you don't know the game and figure out how to exit that menu, but every possible seat has an upcharge above the ticket price), "trip insurance" which is insanely overpriced and mostly only covers the things the airline is already required to reimburse you for, and everything else they do, and it's obvious that when a new anti-feature comes out (mandatory app usage being the latest and greatest) it just exists to scam a few more dollars out of you and lie a bit more about the true ticket price.
by miohtama | 2025-11-10 21:17:12+00:00
If you don't want to read a book, here is a Wikipedia article

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

Back in a day, you did not have cameras yet, so one had to hire snitches. Luckily this is not the case anymore, as demonstrated by Chinese leading by an example:

https://t.co/Q1xOiQMmZT
by mikkupikku | 2025-11-10 21:17:16+00:00
If Mexico wants to deter America, their best bet by far is to pose a credible insurgency threat. And in that regard, between the number of Mexican nationals and sympathizers in America, the number of guns in Mexico, the national pride of the Mexican people, and their established proficiency with asymmetric warfare (at least from their cartel elements)... I think they've got their bases well covered. Mexicans have the capacity to make an invasion of Mexico be extremely painful to the American public.

But Mexico using conventional military force to deter America? That's completely absurd.
by lisbbb | 2025-11-10 21:17:19+00:00
That isn't what happened at all. The SNAP funds have to be appropriated by Congress. Congress has not appropriated the funds. Some groups sued and some judge was asking the Executive Branch to break the law using some emergency fund or funds from WIC or other pots of money that aren't truly earmarked for SNAP. The Judiciary way overstepped there. Then, when a percentage of funds were made available via some mechanism, a few blue states jumped the line and took 100% of them, leaving most states high and dry sans funds. So that looks pretty bad--instead of an even allocation of a percentage, most people get nothing.

SNAP should be audited and there needs to be a way to limit the number of recipients because there's no way 42M Americans need it that bad. If they all do, then we're pretty far gone as a country.

As far as the $2k checks go, I have no idea. Sigh... Dumb dumb dumb! I just want the national debt paid down and the US Govt. to have a budget and live within its means without deficits. Is that so hard?

I do think Trump sends up trial balloons that exist solely to distract the media.
by ErroneousBosh | 2025-11-10 21:17:42+00:00
> I suspect their days are numbered, because they have become _far_ more expensive to dispose of, and that's only going one direction.

They're insanely easy to recycle. You melt lead, you recast it into new plates. Sulphuric acid is very easy to make, and we need to make a lot of it as part of the process of making fertilisers.

> You'd think, but they _haven't_ seen a lot of use in, say, grid-scale applications.

Every telephone exchange you have ever dialled through is powered by massive lead-acid battery, with cells about the size of a decent microwave oven.
by otterdude | 2025-11-10 21:18:11+00:00
I guess my larger point is that words are manipulated to get to a desired effect in the justice system.

Slavery is defined as the practice of owning a "person" which the 13th amendment prohibits. As corporations are people why couldn't this apply using the same flexible level of logic our court system uses??? Its just picking winners and losers!!!

Regarding "money is speech", this is the implication and argument from Citizens United. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citi...
by glenstein | 2025-11-10 21:18:20+00:00
>Of course this seems attractive for some reasons, but it is a wrong, degenerative way to be in the world.

I share your sense that there's something psychologically vivid and valuable in that passage, but it's part of an implicit bargain that's uncontroversial in other respects - I don't have to be an electrician to want a working light switch. I don't personally inspect elevators or planes or, in many cases, food. It's the basic bargain of modernity.

I suppose, to your point, the important distinction here is that I wouldn't call myself an electrician if my relationship to the subject matter doesn't extend beyond the desire to flip a switch.
by mothballed | 2025-11-10 21:18:56+00:00
Might make sense to revisit the constitutionality of license plates, rather than try to attack public recording.

They're demanding you show your "papers" registration at all times without articulable suspicion you've committed a crime/infraction. The fourth amendment arguably protects us from the government requiring us to show us our papers at all times when we're travelling in the most common form of conveyance.
by dogma1138 | 2025-11-10 21:19:03+00:00
Regardless of this situation I actually think that websites like Archive and TWBM should be fully transparent.

A very large partition of citations in Wikipedia for example relies on them. Most of the pages that cite archived copies do so because the live version is no longer available I would like to have some assurances that archive.is and the likes are not altering their content in any way over time.

Unironically content sensitive hashing of archival pages might be one of the few use cases where something like a blockchain might actually be useful for.
by rockostrich | 2025-11-10 21:19:22+00:00
Thanks! I've been looking for a while but couldn't find one that was in decent shape for less than $10k. Thankfully for some reason people shy away from RHD cars and I snagged a 1990 Eunos Roadster for $7700 on C&B. I'm in NJ and sadly it seems like that week was the last week that would've been a decent week to drive with the top down. I may still try and take it out but I'm definitely going to be bundled up.
by nomercy400 | 2025-11-10 21:19:22+00:00
How about using Javascript to fetch the XML (like you would do with JSON), and then parse/transform it with a Javascript or wasm XSLT library? Just like you would do with JSON.

You need a server to serve Json as well. Basically, see XML as data format.

RSS readers are not chrome, so they have their own libraries for parsing/transforming with XSLT.
by ModernMech | 2025-11-10 21:19:32+00:00
> a relatively advanced age.

Maybe you and I have different working definitions of "relative", but Rust hit 1.0 only 10 years ago, whereas the age of the most popular languages is 30+ years. In that sense Rust is relatively young. Indeed, Rust is the youngest language in the TIOBE top 20, and it's more popular than other languages which have been around much longer. The only language which comes close is Swift, and that one had the advantage of Apple pushing it as the main language for iOS development, Rust never had that kind of marketing and corporate support.
by Yoric | 2025-11-10 21:20:15+00:00
I've spoken with quite a few C++ developers who swear that they don't need memory safety tooling because they're good enough to achieve it on their own. More than a few also expect that the worst that can happen from breaking memory safety is a SEGFAULT, which also suggests that they don't understand memory safety.

So, I'd say that there is still some outreach to do on the topic.

On the other hand, you're absolutely right that Rust is only one of the many ways to get there.
by kranke155 | 2025-11-10 21:20:45+00:00
The class system in England is quite entrenched. You have to remember this is a country with an 1000 year old monarchy and noble families who still own a substantial amount of the land. England is both very modernist, quite progressive, and remarkably traditionalist in its makeup.

It’s hard to explain when you’re not there. When people say “the working class” that has a very specific connotation in England - it means you aren’t a noble or a peer or someone like that. Of course the boundaries are blurred, but they are not that blurry yet in England.

So walking around there you get the feeling that there is absolutely a two tier system, some people go to Eton and Oxfridge some people do not. Of course they have allowed a lot of foreign millionaire and billionaires into the system.

But the overall feeling is very much us vs them sometimes and it certainly feels like both sides can despise each other. The working class, as famously depicted by Gillian Anderson as Thatcher in The Crown thinks the nobles “don’t do anything” and the nobles etc because of their Etonian and Oxford education think the lower classes are low IQ.
by jjk166 | 2025-11-10 21:20:58+00:00
The US invading Canada isn't a realistic possibility. Any attempt to do so would trigger a civil war within the US, to say nothing of obliterating the geopolitical system. Attempting to annex in any way shape or form is currently nothing more than the musings of an old man, the only way any territorial changes could happen are through peaceful, mutually agreed upon transfer.

If the US were to seriously entertain the notion of invading its neighbor, 300,000 poorly trained reservists aren't going to seriously change the calculus. Canada is strong per capita but it has a fraction of the absolute population, military strength, and economy of the US. Nearly all of its major population centers are within extremely close proximity with the US border. It's military and economy are both heavily intertwined with the US, regardless of what rhetoric is being thrown around. A reserve force is for freeing up the active military to be used most effectively, defending key chokepoints, launching offensives, and operating complicated equipment, with the reservists doing things like preparing defensive lines, manning low risk areas, and supporting logistics. In a war between the US and Canada, the US would be able to launch large assaults with professional soldiers in multiple places with no natural obstacles over the short distance between their origin and objectives. There would be little for reservists to do to help - there would be no low risk areas to man, no defenses to prepare, very little in the ways of logistics to be concerned with. If Canada had serious concerns about the US invading, its money would be better spent on disentangling its armed forces from the US, acquiring counters to US systems, and establishing defensible positions between its border and major population centers.
by mr_toad | 2025-11-10 21:21:21+00:00
I don’t think that modern Turkey thinks of itself as an empire. They overthrew the Sultanate themselves, seems they were glad to be rid of it.

I doubt any sensible modern country wants a physical empire, they’re much too much trouble to maintain. You basically get the same benefits with outsourcing and cheap imports, without having to maintain garrisons.
by pmontra | 2025-11-10 21:21:26+00:00
Their goal is not my goal. My goal is to fly to a destination. A paper ticket has always been enough for that. And if they want to upsell a web page can be full of upselling too. But I don't want upsells, only a flight and air companies are commodities. Imagine if I had to install an app for every chain of gas pumps around my country and the nearby ones.
by fock | 2025-11-10 21:21:52+00:00
> It also strikes me as a uniquely difficult challenge to track down the decision maker who is willing to take the risk on revamping these systems (AI or not).

here that person is a manager which got demoted from ~500 reports to ~40 and then convinced his new boss that it's good to reuse his team for his personal AI strategy which will make him great again.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-11-10 21:21:57+00:00
> It’s the duty of all law enforcement agencies to help remove those who are here illegally.

Law enforcement only has a duty to enforce the laws that are within their jurisdiction and scope to enforce.

A red-coded equivalent is the long-running antagonism between States in the Mountain West and the Federal government regarding land use e.g. the Sagebrush Rebellion[0]. In these cases, local law enforcement generally refuses to enforce the Federal law and in some cases actively interferes with enforcement by Federal officers by leveraging the unique role that sheriffs occupy in the US legal system.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion
by mikkupikku | 2025-11-10 21:22:27+00:00
Russia's arctic operational capability is world class, exceeding even America by far. America could at least try to engage Russia with submarine warfare and long range missiles, but what could Canada do themselves, muster a few hundred native locals armed with century old rifles? Canada would be forced to go to America for help, which might end up in Canada giving up some mineral rights at least, if not substantial chunks of territory in whole.

Now, however unlikely you think Russia is to actually start some kinetic shit in the Arctic, I think you're crazy to rate their threat lower than China. China being richer, more disciplined and less dumb only makes the relative threat to Canada even smaller. Russia, being relatively dumb, undisciplined, poor and increasingly reliant on oil exports to prop up their economy makes the probability of Russia daring to start shit higher, not lower.

Edit: Some of you obviously don't take this seriously, so here's a question for any of you. If Russia announces they are going to be drilling oil in arctic waters that are nominally Canada's, and declares their annexation of this territory a fiat accompli, what is Canada's move? Demand help from their NATO allies, which may or may not include America? What if America declines and demands the mineral rights to Canadian territory in exchange for chasing Russia off Canada's sea floor? Canada sure as hell can't fight Russia under the ice cap themselves. Without a credible military response of their, Canada must count on having reliable and powerful allies. Russia's desire and motive are clear, they want the arctic oil. China is dangerous in their own way, the PLAN is very dangerous, but if they're going to start shit it will be over Taiwan and if it involves anybody else it will probably be the USN and maybe the JSDF, not Canada. The real threat the PRC poses to Canada is subversion of the Canadian political system, buying and bribing their way through getting anything they want from Canada. And that's not the kind of threat you can counter with military spending.
by alganet | 2025-11-10 21:22:43+00:00
It works quite well for me.

I don't use it as inspiration. It's like I said: code that is not reviewed yet.

It takes the idea of 50 juniors working for you one step ahead. I manage the workflow in a way that they already made the code they wrote merge and build before I review it. When it doesn't, I delete it from the stash.

I could keep a branch for this. Or go even deeper on the temptation and keep multiple branches. But that's more of my throughput I have to spent on merging and ensuring things build after merging. It's only me. One branch, plus an extra "WIP". Stash is perfect for that.

Also, it's one level of stashing. It's stacked in the sense that it keeps growing, but it's not several `git stash pop`s that I do.

One thing that helps is that I already used this to keep stuff like automation for repos that I maintain. Stuff the owner doesn't want or isn't good enough to be reused. Sometimes it was hundreds of lines, now it's thousands.
by riskable | 2025-11-10 21:22:45+00:00
Coding with an AI is an amplifier. It'll amplify your poor planning just as much as it amplifies your speed at getting some coding task done.

An unplanned problem becomes amplified by 10-100x worse than if you coded things slowly, by hand. That's when the AI starts driving you into Complexity Corner™ (LOL) to work around the lack of planning.

If all you're ever doing is using prompts like, `write a function to do...` or `write a class...` you're never going to run into the sorts of super fucking annoying problems that people using AI complain the most about.

It's soooooo tempting to just tell the AI to make complete implementations of things and say to yourself, "I'll clean that up later." You make so much progress so fast this way it's unreal! Then you hit Complexity Corner™ where the problem is beyond the (current) LLM's capabilities.

Coding with AI takes discipline! Not just knowledge and experience.
by noduerme | 2025-11-10 21:22:45+00:00
>>The total amount of generated untrustworthy content is irrelevant

Of course it is relevant. Discerning which sources to trust takes valuable time. Sources which were once trusted may need to be reevaluated.

>>It was never difficult to publish large amounts of misinformation, AI is only making it cheaper.

What is the difference between difficulty and expense?
by dismantle | 2025-11-10 21:23:04+00:00
Location: New Jersey, USA

Remote: Open to it

Willing to relocate: Yes, anywhere in the US/EU/UK

Technologies: C/C++, Rust, Go, Java, Python, SQL, NoSQL, JavaScript, Typescript, React, AngularJS, Ember.js, React Native

Resume/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H2jlBAXOO7hrbI7Oqa2jblEarVD...

Email: krishna.sl+hn@rutgers.edu

Portfolio Website: https://krshsl.github.io

~4 years of experience as an SDE in India, before I began pursuing my masters here in the US. Open to any new grad role, or roles that require a little bit of experience.