MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Ethee | 2025-11-07 23:43:09+00:00
I think you're misunderstanding my argument, or maybe you have a rather radical point of view on compensation in the industry. My point was that compensation should be directly tied to your value to the company and not loosely correlated with your job title as it is currently. Determining how valuable you are to a company can be hard in itself though. I actually fully agree with you about companies under valuing front end positions, but I think that's more due to market forces (there's a larger supply of front-end web developers than any other type of developer) which is slightly outside the scope of my argument.

It's strange to me that you believe different disciplines should be compensated the same as no other industry would even consider that. Imagine I'm making a child's toy, should the CAD designer be compensated the same as my machinist just because they're working on the same project? In the same token why should the developer who is doing a completely different job from another developer be compensated exactly the same just because they're working on the same webapp and coding? It just doesn't make sense.
by al_borland | 2025-11-07 23:43:18+00:00
I’ve only purchased one Matter device so far and have been thoroughly unimpressed. I held off buying any “smart” stuff until Matter launched to avoid needing a bunch of apps for different vendors or any lock in. However, I couldn’t setup the Matter device without downloading the vendor’s app (I put off doing this for over a year, because of how annoyed I was by this). Only then could I add it to Apple Home. Then after the iOS 26 update, the Home integration broke and I can only use it with the vendor’s app. I tried deleting and re-adding with no luck. The troubleshooting listed by ChatGPT seemed extreme and more effort than it was worth.

As someone who dipped their toe into the water, I’m not excited to go in further or put any trust in this stuff. It all seems very half baked.

Is this a skill issue, or just the nature of the beast that no one likes to admit to, because it’s mostly hobbiests doing this stuff? I wouldn’t expect something being sold to the masses to need special tip and tricks for basic functionality.

My dad is really into the smart home stuff, but he’s retired. He is also endlessly forgiving of what I would call pretty serious issues. For example, the lock on his front door needs to be recalibrated any time someone manually unlocks the door, and he has to wait for a local BT connection to establish any time he wants to do it from his phone. He still thinks it’s cool, but fragility in a door lock system sounds like a nightmare waiting to happen.
by cube2222 | 2025-11-07 23:43:32+00:00
I mostly disagree.

First, LLMs should be happy to use made up languages described in a couple thousand tokens without issues (you just have to have a good llm-friendly description, some examples). That and having a compiler it can iterate with / get feedback from.

Second, LLMs heavily reduce ecosystem advantage. Before LLMs, presence of libraries for common use cases to save myself time was one of the main deciding factors for language choice.

Now? The LLM will be happy to implement any utility / api client library I want given the API I want. May even be more thoroughly tested than the average open-source library.
by 1bpp | 2025-11-07 23:44:42+00:00
How would this prevent someone from just plugging ElevenLabs into it? Or the inevitable more realistic voice models? Or just a prerecorded spam message? It's already nearly impossible to tell if some speech is human or not. I do like the idea of recovering the emotional information lost in speech -> text, but I don't think it'd help the LLM issue.
by jlouis | 2025-11-07 23:45:15+00:00
Not a priori.

The grand design of BEAM is that you are copying data rather than passing it by reference. A copy operation severs a data dependency by design. Once the copy is handed somewhere, that part can operate in isolation. And modern computers are far better at copying data around than what people think. The exception are big-blocks-of-data(tm), but binaries are read-only in BEAM and thus not copied.

Sure, if you set up a problem which requires a ton of communication, then this model suffers. But so does your GPU if you do the same thing.

As Joe Armstrong said: our webserver is a thousand small webservers, each serving one request.

Virtually none of them have to communicate with each other.
by brudgers | 2025-11-07 23:45:49+00:00
My advice is to decide what you really want.

Confrontation is expensive. Not just financially when it involves lawyers, but also temporarily and emotionally.

Particularly if you are up against a well funded institution that is free to act amorally (which is not the same as immorally).

With regard to the IP claim, its validity simply doesn’t matter. You can’t afford to show its invalidity because the university has lawyers on staff (and if it has a law school alumni in the bar and on the bench). And of course many many other parallel claims to motivate resource allocation.

Get your degree and get on with life whether that involves trying to start a company or getting a job.

And if you are going to start a company, this is the sort of thing you will probably face regularly. Good luck.
by pjc50 | 2025-11-07 23:47:42+00:00
> The answer is that it just takes a lot of people. What if no content could appear on Facebook until it passed a human moderation process?

A lot of people = a lot of cost. That would probably settle out lower than the old classified ads, but paying even a dollar per Facebook post would be a radically different use than the present situation.

And of course you'd end up with a ban of some sort on all smaller forums and BBS that couldn't maintain compliance requirements.
by brokencode | 2025-11-07 23:48:21+00:00
I recognized the reference. I just don’t think it applies here.

The iPhone antenna issue was a design flaw. It’s not reasonable to tell people to hold a phone in a certain way. Most phones are built without a similar flaw.

LLMs are of course nondeterministic. That doesn’t mean they can’t be useful tools. And there isn’t a clear solution similar to how there was a clear solution to the iPhone problem.
by sparkie | 2025-11-07 23:48:26+00:00
It's most likely a combination of both genetics and society - neither are absolutes. There is no concrete evidence that intelligence is purely a social construct, nor that it is genetic. We simply don't know.

People get cancelled not for saying that it is genetic, but for questioning whether it may be. Of course, we will never know if we're not allowed to ask. Cancel culture is anti-science.

Watson may have been racist, but questioning whether there is a relationship between genetics and intelligence by itself is not racism.
by FloorEgg | 2025-11-07 23:48:46+00:00
> Then I would be doing a very poor job of actually researching the topic.

I made the request to try and tease apart where we disagree exactly. Your interpretation and response to my request/offer comes off as unnecessarily disrespectful. (unkind, elitist and tramples curiosity)

It seems increasingly likely that I was mistaken in thinking we could explore this subject together. It seems you are intent on attacking my position and discrediting my points and not interested in building a shared understanding.

I find this disappointing.
by uberduper | 2025-11-07 23:48:50+00:00
In my experience

- Try to find a way to not go to the meeting. Anything you say, especially the most insignificant part, will be used against _someone_ in an argument that doesn't make any sense. You're going to feel the need to correct their misunderstanding and misuse of what you said. You might even try to re-focus the discussion back to the important thing you were _trying_ to say. It only goes down hill from there. You're better off interfacing with a group of C-level people through documents.

- 1:1 meetings can work. Make sure you can back up everything you say with data.

- You're a developer, you can't estimate time and effort for shit. If asked, say you'll get with your manager or the PjM or w/e to get a date.

- Find out from the person that asked you to join what you should be prepared to speak to.

- If there's an agenda or documents that will be discussed, read them before the meeting. Doesn't matter if they plan to read it during the meeting.

- No hemming and hawing. If you don't understand what you're being asked, ask for clarification. If you don't have an answer you're confident in, say so. If they insist, prefix your crisp and concise answer with your level of confidence. "In my experience.." "From what I've read.." etc.
by rekabis | 2025-11-07 23:49:02+00:00
The only reason why I still have Windows is because of a handful of apps that are Windows-only and don’t play nice with WINE, and because so many of my clients are similarly locked into Windows with certain programs, or cannot otherwise switch, and I need to be able to support them.

Frankly, I am getting tired of the cat-and-mouse game of ripping out spyware and other decisions that are forcibly made for me (compressed files mounted as folders since XP, for example). I don’t think I’m going to stick with Windows past v11.
by baobun | 2025-11-07 23:49:37+00:00
The curly braces are the one thing that really "pop out" from the font the moment I look at it. Even if I can agree they are pretty and even adorable, also visually noisy, distracting, and something that makes me not want to try the font out.

Being distinct from parens and brackets is obviously still desired and sorry I'm not a designer myself enough to give more specific feedback on how it could be improved.

Otherwise very attractive font.
by HaZeust | 2025-11-07 23:50:14+00:00
Speaking as someone in their 20s - no, I don't think it's a "completely different time". Just 10 years ago, I first learned programming from scripting languages; SourcePawn from Team Fortress 2, and Lua from Roblox/GMod. Predators, hive minds, and self-destructing behavior from children wasn't suddenly invented or rejuvenated after 2016.

All 3 were a total hotbed of bad influences for a child: Team Fortress had trade pub servers with people doing sprays of literal CP and wearing custom lewd skins to harass users with them - and people with very questionable social skills and intentions huddled up in realtime microphone comms with children, Roblox's predator problem for the last 14+ years (at least that I can attest) is suddenly en vogue now that they're a public company and there's stock shorting to be had, GMod is still the community with the most colorful vocabulary I've ever encountered - plus grooming. And much more.

Indeed, you can (and I did) get burned by these actualities when exposed to such communities in your youth - and it can cost you real money, real time, real idealism/innocence, and real mental health. However, I think being exposed to softwares, systems and games that inspired curiosity and led me toward a path of WANTING to contribute brought me to this software development career and life path, and it would have been much more inaccessible and unknown to me in any other way. And I favorited a comment from another HN user a few days ago that goes in astute depth on why that path can only be organically introduced and self-governed [1].

I referred to these places earlier in my comment as "bad influences". I think the single-most powerful thing a parent can do tasked with this dilemma - especially during an upbringing in systemically hard, uncertain, and turbulent times - is teaching them how to identify, avoid, and confront bad influences. Equipped with that, and knowing how to handle yourself, is of utmost importance.

1 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45718773
by ModernMech | 2025-11-07 23:50:25+00:00
Expression-based, immutable by default, pattern matching, static typing, and result / option types are the mix of features that make Rust what it is at its core, and each of those you'll find in OCaml. There's a couple others but that's the heart of it.

I'm not saying that Rust feels like Ocaml as some are interpreting, I said Rust is more imperative feeling, they're not the same. The reason Rust has had success bringing these features to the mainstream where Ocaml has not, I believe, is because Rust does not describe itself as a functional language, where as Ocaml does, right up front. Therefore, despite Rust having a reputation for being difficult, new learners are less intimidated by it than something calling itself "functional". I see it all the time. By the time they learn Rust, they are ready to take on a language like Ocaml, because they've already learned some of the best parts of that language via Rust.

Note my comment about their similarities is not at the level of borrow checkers and garbage collectors.
by array_key_first | 2025-11-07 23:51:38+00:00
> Companies don't function well with adversarial units within them

This isn't a given, this is just an opinion, and one you didn't bother trying to argue for.

Many systems do function much better with adversarial units in them. Governments have the adversarial units of checks and balances. Companies have the adversarial forces of the market. A news paper has the adversarial units of editors to their writers.
by esafak | 2025-11-07 23:52:38+00:00
So you're going to reject recordings detected as computer generated, or human recorded from a computer-generated script?

I feel like you are making your users jump through hoops to do bot and slop detection, when you ought to be investing in technology to do the same. Here is a focusing question: would you still demand audio recordings if you had that technology?

Maybe you will court an interesting set of users when you do this? I just know I will not be one of them; ain't got time for that. Good luck.
by hylaride | 2025-11-07 23:53:02+00:00
I disagree. Apple had no monopoly on 1.8" hard drives nor most of the other components in the original iPod (except maybe the scroll wheel itself?); they were merely among the first to apply it into a media player. It was the UI that was groundbreaking. You could switch from an album, to and artist, to a playlist, to a specific song all within seconds with your thumb. CD-based mp3 players were ok, but were battery hogs and updating playlists/music/etc was a hassle as one had to burn CDs. The UIs for most were "useable" at best.

Apple did have clever, original, and good marketing, but the product (iPod) was so clearly better than anything that came before it, either way. And that was my original point against the prior comment that the customer experience was just "be like Steve Jobs" and then it's good.
by ForHackernews | 2025-11-07 23:53:04+00:00
> I can’t think of any other language in my 45 years long career that surprised more than Zig. I can easily say that Zig is not only a new programming language, but it’s a totally new way to write programs, in my opinion. To say it’s merely a language to replace C or C++, it’s a huge understatement.

I don't understand how the things presented in this article are surprising. Zig has several nice features shared by many modern programming languages?
by Der_Einzige | 2025-11-07 23:54:13+00:00
The idea of treating under 18s like they are human is extremely undesirable in the USA because it among other things opens up a lot of doctors to be held accountable for their participation in the mass mutilation of baby boys. It also holds a whole lot of physically abusive parents to a standard where their children could call CPS and get their parents in legal trouble for corporal punishment.

Of course, these are indeed good things in worlds that don't endorse physical violence as the primary method to enforce control. This is why Finland his tail docking, ear cropping, animal crating, corporal punishment, circumcision, etc bans and why the US South is so ruthless.
by jasonlotito | 2025-11-07 23:54:53+00:00
> Please don’t start drama where nothing exists.

You were ignorant (fact) and unecessarily antagonistic (fact).

I corrected you.

> You were confused and I pointed out that

I wasn't, and claiming I was is a lie.

> I am simply asking what is the point of the response to my comment.

Yes, you were ignorant. You didn't know somehting. Ignorance isn't an insult. It's a lack of knowledge.

> instead of using inflammatory language

Take our own advice.
by array_key_first | 2025-11-07 23:55:18+00:00
This is just a belief. A belief that allows you to do anything, and can absolve anyone of any evil.

Why stop there? Why have systems or government at all? Why even bother making murder illegal? After all, it's human nature. After all, it's just how life works. After all, the strong win, and the weak get eaten. Everyone knows that.
by DonaldPShimoda | 2025-11-07 23:55:21+00:00
I'm desperately looking forward to, like, 5-10 years from now when all the "LLMs are going to change everything!!1!" comments have all but completely abated (not unlike the blockchain stuff of ~10 years ago).

No, LLMs are not going to replace compiler engineers. Compilers are probably one of the least likely areas to profit from extensive LLM usage in the way that you are thinking, because they are principally concerned with correctness, and LLMs cannot reason about whether something is correct — they only can predict whether their training data would be likely to claim that it is correct.

Additionally, each compiler differs significantly in the minute details. I simply wouldn't trust the output of an LLM to be correct, and the time wasted on determining whether it's correct is just not worth it.

Stop eating pre-chewed food. Think for yourself, and write your own code.
by zahlman | 2025-11-07 23:56:06+00:00
> I saw this tweet: "Hear me out: X but it's only voice messages (with AI transcriptions)" - and couldn't stop thinking about it.

> Why this exists: AI-generated content is drowning social media.

> Real-time transcription

... So you want to filter out AI content by requiring users to produce audio (not really any harder for AI than text), and you add AI content afterward (the transcriptions) anyway?

I really think you should think this through more.

The "authenticity" problem is fundamentally about how users discover each other. You get flooded with AI slop because the algorithm is pushing it in front of you. And that algorithm is easily gamed, and all the existing competitors are financially incentivized to implement such an algorithm and not care about the slop.

Also, I looked at the page source and it gives a strong impression that you are using AI to code the project and also that your client fundamentally works by querying an LLM on the server. It really doesn't convey the attitude supposedly motivating the project.

Nice tech demo though, I guess.
by teaearlgraycold | 2025-11-07 23:56:11+00:00
It can still fuck it up. And you need to actually read the code. But still a time saver for certain trivial tasks. Like if I'm going to scrape a web page as a cron job I can pretty much just tell it here's the URL, here's the XPath for the elements I want, and it'll take it from there. Read over the few dozen lines of code, run it and we're done in a few minutes.
by xinayder | 2025-11-07 23:57:07+00:00
I was a member of STS and I can say crowdsourced translations were a million times better than the now-paid translation teams Valve hires.

And yes, while it was mostly "unpaid", during my time there (2016-2020), we had a year-end rally every year which the "fastest" teams to complete translations would receive Steam wallet codes for their effort. I received up to $350 the first year of rally.

The next year they gave us Artifact keys...

and then the one Valve employee managing the server left Valve, and STS was slowly being replaced by Crowdin

they essentially killed crowdsourcing starting with Artifact. We (the STS members) had no access to new strings, then came Underlords, the new client... Only TF2 translations are crowdsourced to this day. The rest are done by their external teams.
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-07 23:58:22+00:00
I tested staying in CPython but jitting the main function with numba (no code changes but adding the jit decorator and expected type signature, and adding the same jit warmup call before the benchmark that the Julia version uses), and its about an 11× speedup. Code:

import random import time from numba import jit, int32, float64 @jit(float64(int32), nopython=True) def monte_carlo_pi(n): inside = 0 for i in range(n): x = random.random() y = random.random() if x**2 + y**2 <= 1.0: inside += 1 return 4.0 * inside / n # Warm up (compile) monte_carlo_pi(100) # Benchmark start = time.time() result = monte_carlo_pi(100_000_000) elapsed = time.time() - start print(f"Time: {elapsed:.3f} seconds") print(f"Estimated pi: {result}")

Base version (using the unmodified Python code from the slide):

$ python -m monte Time: 13.758 seconds Estimated pi: 3.14159524

Numba version:

$ python -m monte-numba Time: 1.212 seconds Estimated pi: 3.14143924
by jjulius | 2025-11-07 23:58:43+00:00
>... the actual research that paints a much more complicated picture.

Given that ChatGPT is still very much in a "trust, but verify" state (on a daily basis it confidently states falsehoods about subject matter I'm highly familiar with, for instance), I'm wondering if you followed up to confirm that the data at the sources provided by ChatGPT accurately reflected what it told you.

If you're going to insist that others revisit their research, I would hope that you're making a good faith effort towards doing the same.
by xinayder | 2025-11-07 23:58:47+00:00
Allegations of unpaid labor are for crowdsourced translations and have nothing to do with Valve as a workplace.

This controversy is known and there are a few translators on Steam/Valve that came from the community, but nowadays it is mostly outsourced, and they do a terrible job (they replaced gamers with people who can't even bother to download the game to check the context a string is applied to).
by clueless | 2025-11-07 23:58:57+00:00
In a clean game-theoretic terms, without making any moral or ideological claims about “who is smarter”, we’ll treat underlying advantage as any positional asset (intelligence, wealth, charisma, skill, social capital, etc.). The question is: If a subset of players has an advantage in a repeated, large-group game, how do they best play to maximize payoff and stability?

Here's the strategy chatgpt came up with (amongst many other):

What Not to Say (Avoid These)

Don’t describe intelligence or talent as intrinsic, innate, or permanent. This triggers resentment and identity defense.

Don’t use language that signals “I am ahead of you.”

Don’t use your advantage to win every interaction—save leverage for important conflicts.

People tolerate talent. They hate being made aware of being lower in the hierarchy.

_____

Is it possible the backlash to Watson could be viewed from this game theocratic perspective, and not that he was racist and wrong?
by bcrl | 2025-11-07 23:58:58+00:00
The Archer BE3600 is uninteresting to me. It only does 2x2 MIMO which means that beamforming is not as effective as it is for 3x3 or 4x4 MIMO routers, and it therefore has worse coverage. The end result is that previous gen 3x3 or 4x4 routers are a better option for typical users. Going to 3x3 or 4x4 with 3 bands is where things become ridiculously expensive.

If all you care about is the peak speed at short range, sure, maybe it's the right choice. But for most people coverage is far more important.

The Archer C80 has 3x3 MIMO and costs under US$40. I get 400-500Mbps over wireless (which is firmly in the Good Enough territory for many uses) with it on most 2x2 devices, plus I can install twice as many for the cost of a single Wifi 7 router to get better coverage. That seems like a win to me.
by 0manrho | 2025-11-07 23:59:46+00:00
Precisely. This is their "Have the cake and eat it too" strategy, where so long as they aren't as egregious as their competitors, they know it's a Net gain as most of their customers will still feel the grass is still greener in their wall garden than elsewhere. Even if the grass isn't near as green or well kept so to speak as it used to be.