MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jillesvangurp | 2025-12-09 14:37:34+00:00
I've been doing one thing for many years that forces me to be smart about test fixtures in my integration tests and test data: I test concurrently with many threads.

This means that my test can't depend on the database to be in some known state or assume to have exclusive access to that database. And for example modify anything that might be used by another test. They can only modify things that are specific to that test.

Most of my tests work around this limitation by either just creating their own teams, users, and other objects they need with randomized ids; or in some cases deferring their execution until some bit of logic with lock has created some shared data that then is never modified.

Instead of hard coded IDs, I tend to use randomized ids (UUIDs typically). I have a person data generator that gives me human readable names, email addresses, etc. Randomized data like this avoids test modifying each other's data.

As an example, we have a few tests for an analytics dashboard that locks on a bit of expensive code that creates a lot of content via our APIs to do analytics on. The scenario is quite elaborate and uses a few factories, known timestamps, etc. If I refactor my data model, my factories are also refactored. Using a lock ensures that data is initialized only once. Once that is done, there are a bunch of test that that test different queries against that.

You might think that all this is slow. It's not. I have about 380 integration tests like this that run in under 30 seconds on my laptop (which has a lot of CPU cores). Having this as a safety net is very empowering. I've been on teams that had less tests where running them took ten or more minutes. This I can do quickly before committing.

Testing like this has many advantages. But one includes easy to maintain tests. I put some effort into usable test data factories. The "when" part of a BDD style integration tests is usually most of the work. So, by making that as easy as I can, I lower the barrier for writing more tests. And using all my cpu cores, minimizes the impact new tests have on execution time to the point where I don't worry about that.

Another is that for big structural changes my tests continue to work if I just fix their shared factories to do the right thing usually.
by delichon | 2025-12-09 14:37:48+00:00
On the question of whether to legislate the ban, I'm a no. On the question of whether parents should implement it, I'm a yes. My niece and her husband have a one year old that is allowed zero screen time. They are willing and able to forego the high tech baby sitting, and are talking about continuing until at least the pre-teens. I think that if they could go even further, say live for the next decade with the Amish, it would be even better.

If a kid was raised with his family in a dome where no technology later than 1900 were permitted (perhaps with an emergency medicine exception) and the kid wasn't released into the world until 13, I think on average they'd be mentally healthier and have a happier life.
by jacquesm | 2025-12-09 14:37:54+00:00
A pocket calculator that would give the right numbers 99.7% of the time would be fairly useless. The lack of determinism is a problem and there is nothing 'uncharitable' about that interpretation. It is definitely impressive, but it is fundamentally broken, because when you start making chains of things that are 99.7% correct you end up with garbage after very few iterations. That's precisely why digital computers won out over analog ones, the fact that they are deterministic.
by gwbas1c | 2025-12-09 14:37:56+00:00
> Well, we were trying to start the vacation but had to wait until leaving uptight red state

I live in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, and we still have special laws about Alcohol on Sunday. According to Gemini, Logan airport can't start serving until 10 a.m. (Because in Massachusetts, we don't want you getting drunk on the way to your Unitarian or interfaith Sunday service after you get off of your red-eye flight.)

You can also try reading https://www.mass.gov/guides/working-on-sundays-and-holidays-... if you have the time.
by IAmBroom | 2025-12-09 14:38:10+00:00
> though the speculative nature of the estimates warrants consideration.

Experts in a related field were asked to guess how successful something no one has ever done would be, if it could be done.

That's like asking a bunch of certified mechanics how fast George Jetson's flying car could go. I mean, there are mechanics in The Jetson's universe, so... same knowledge base, right?
by danaris | 2025-12-09 14:38:11+00:00
I've just spent the last 15 years working in academia—not as an academic myself, but supporting them as, essentially, a satellite IT department of one within the Psychology department at my small university.

They expect me to generally keep up with my skills, and learn new things as the needs of their research dictate, but not to be constantly upskilling, constantly pushing for promotions, because...there aren't any. It's a singular position with zero logical progression from or to it.

The pay is definitely substandard (and I've told them, now that I'm moving to Ireland, that they will need to fix that to attract anyone remotely near my calibre), and the rural location means there's not a lot to do in the vicinity, but the benefits are good, the job security is fantastic, the faculty are wonderful people, and the environment is, overall, very chill and friendly.
by kllrnohj | 2025-12-09 14:38:25+00:00
Anecdotes etc etc but the AI tests I've been sent to review have been absolute shit. Stuff like that just calling a function doesn't crash the program. No assertions other than "end of test method reached"

Yes sometimes those tests are necessary, but it seemed to just do it everywhere because it made the code coverage percentage go up. Even though it was useless.

I have also had great experiences with AI cranking out straightforward boilerplate or asking C++ template metaprogramming questions. It's not all negative. But net-net it feels like it takes more work in total to use AI as you have to learn to recognize when it just won't handle the task, which can happen a lot. And you need to keep up with what it did enough to be able to take over. And reading code is harder than writing it.
by klank4 | 2025-12-09 14:38:43+00:00
What's worked best with Gemini such I made a DSL that transpiles to C with CUDA support to train small models in about 3 hours... (all programs must run against an image data set, must only generate embeddings)

Do not; vibe code from top down (ex. Make me a UI with React, with these buttons and these behaviors to each button)

Do not; chat casually with it. (ex. I think it would look better if the button was green)

Do; constrain phrasing to the next data transform goal (ex. You must add a function to change all words that start with lowercase to start with uppercase)

Do; vibe code bottom up (ex. You must generate a file with a function to open a plaintext file and appropriate tests; now you must add a function to count all words that begin with "f")

Do; stick to must/should/may (ex. You must extend the code with this next function)

Do; constrain it to mathematical abstractions (ex. sys prompt: You must not use loops, you must only use recursion and functional paradigms. You must not make up abstractions and stick to mathematical objects and known algorithms)

Do; constrain it to one file per type and function. This makes it quick to review, regenerate only what needs to change.

Using those patterns, Gemini 2.5 and 3 have cranked out banging code with little wandering off in the weeds and hallucinating.

Programming has been mired in made up semantics of the individual coder for the luls, to create mystique and obfuscate the truth to ensure job security; end of the day it's matrix math and state sync between memory and display.
by chii | 2025-12-09 14:38:46+00:00
> It's popular in Australia according to polling

depends on how or who you poll. I dont think it is popular. It's just that there's a lot of stigma when you try to argue against "saving the children" type policy - which is why this gets used to pass laws that otherwise would be difficult to pass if the true intentions were revealed.

> Credibly fixing

"credibly" is carrying a lot of weight here.
by radanskoric | 2025-12-09 14:38:51+00:00
I'm familiar with snapshot testing for UI and I agree with you, they can work really well for this because they're usually quick to verify. And especially if you can build in some smart tolerance to the comparison logic, it can be really easy to maintain.

But how would you do snapshot testing for behaviour? I'm approaching the problem primarily from the backend side and there most tests are about behaviour.
by thw_9a83c | 2025-12-09 14:38:53+00:00
> They also are actively decreasing the value by sunsetting Publisher in October 2026.

You have my sympathy. I was also a frequent MS Publisher user, and I always felt that not many people knew about it. It's a useful, simple DTP package suitable for many less complex page layout scenarios. After the End-of-Support announcement, I switched to the LibreOffice Draw already. Fortunately, LibreOffice Draw works quite nicely as a Publisher replacement for me. There is also Scribus [1].

[1]: https://www.scribus.net/
by flpm | 2025-12-09 14:38:59+00:00
Social media is not the same product as social networks. It had value when you were in control of what content you wanted to see (your friends' posts).

Now social media, controlled by algorithms, is just like a permanent informercial. You have direct ads and first level indirect adds (sponsored content), but it goes deeper than that, when they manage set up a "viral trend" you have a lot of people acting as speaker person for brands without even realizing.

Attention shapes who you will become in the future, because it focus on what matters to you. When you outsource that to others, they can mold you into what is more profitable to them. Specially kids, who are at the prime time for being influenced.
by imtringued | 2025-12-09 14:39:02+00:00
Reading these two comments is bizarre from my perspective. How is Amazon competitive with anything? They tend to have higher prices than other online retailers and the intransparent market place system tries to protect shady sellers with product focused reviews instead of seller based reviews. The moment you get even a single fake product or wrong delivery all the perceived savings evaporate at once.

The idea of paying a subscription for the privilege of being scammed sounds ridiculous. The cost of deliveries doesn't magically go down because you're paying a subscription. You're paying for it either way. Either you're overpaying on the subscription because you're not ordering enough or you're overpaying in the form of higher prices that contain the remaining delivery fee.
by cwmma | 2025-12-09 14:39:21+00:00
Actual payment fees are hitting a couple % max, all the rest is platform fees which are orthogonal to how you are paying. If you sell something through airbnb, they will get a cut no matter how you pay.

Credit card fees are a great deal for consumers even when they are added as a surcharge or there is a cash discount. Not having to deal with cash AND being able to dispute transactions are significant benefits.
by mijoharas | 2025-12-09 14:39:31+00:00
there's a profiler that can show you what to focus on, probably fprof here: https://test-prof.evilmartians.io/ (been a while and I don't remember exactly what I used)

(now maybe that's what you used to see what was causing the slowdown, but mentioning to for others to help them identify the bottlenecks.)
by gus_massa | 2025-12-09 14:39:33+00:00
Is it possible to measure which rules are more useful in each case?

When my older daughter was a kid, she used to play Sudoku 6x6. I notices she was trying the rules in a weird order, that was different from mine that played 9x9.

After playing a few 6x6 I notice some of the rules were more useful in 6x6 than in 9x9 and she was right to try them in a different order.
by iamnothere | 2025-12-09 14:39:54+00:00
> there's clearly no good done by the existence of social media

Citation needed.

Look, I am greatly opposed to how US social media giants handle and monetize data, and I don’t like them having the level of control that they do. Antitrust is a great lever to use here, because concentration is the source of many problems. But banning what is in effect public social communications is a giant step over the First Amendment.

People can and do use social media to their benefit, whether it’s for political organizing, whistleblowing, mutual aid, OSINT, or gathering on the ground media and first hand accounts from active events (such as conflicts, protests, or police actions) that may never show up in the news. The professional media cannot be everywhere, and sometimes they will not cover certain events. That’s what social media is good for, despite its flaws.
by rikimaru0345 | 2025-12-09 14:40:42+00:00
Ok, I've read the paper and now I wonder, why did they stop at the most interesting part?

They did all that work to figure out that learning "base conversion" is the difficult thing for transformers. Great! But then why not take that last remaining step to investigate why that specifically is hard for transformers? And how to modify the transformer architecture so that this becomes less hard / more natural / "intuitive" for the network to learn?
by Spivak | 2025-12-09 14:40:50+00:00
The title is less nonsense than it first appears. Cassettes are riding the coattails of vinyl getting popular again as collectibles. Lots of medium sized bands added vinyl to their merch stands to great success with their fans but the total manufacturing capacity of vinyl is small and everyone was suddenly competing for it. Not to mention when Taylor Swift drops an album and buys it all. Enter cassettes, another piece of physical media that's easier for artists to get their hands on and has similar collectible properties.

Neither vinyl nor cassettes are going to make a dent in terms of music distribution, but that's because they compete in the same market as band t shirts.
by prmoustache | 2025-12-09 14:41:12+00:00
You couldn't instantly record the radio on CD and until computers with CD recorder were common it was harder to share/copy/mix stuff between friends. Tapes were useful before MP3/broadband/p2p file sharing were a thing even long after CD had become common. As a teenager I couldn't afford every CD and vinyl release I liked and even if I had the means the records weren't necessarily available in store locally. Many of us had to rely on that tape being ready in the deck and ninja reflexes to hit the record button fast enough.

Minidiscs would have been better but harder to finance/justify as a kid.
by estearum | 2025-12-09 14:41:18+00:00
No, it would require overcoming a shameless demagogue and enablers who have no problem blatantly lying about everything to everyone.

Democracy has been known since its invention to be extremely vulnerable to such actors. It's vulnerable to it because it's nearly impossible to counter.

Your critique is valid to some degree, but Trump won simply because he had the shamelessness to lie over and over and over again that he'd bring prices down. That's it.

No "positive, pragmatic suggestions" are electorally stronger than simple untruths stated with confidence ad infinitum.
by SirMaster | 2025-12-09 14:41:20+00:00
I bet on it because in 2009 when I bought the coins for about $100 each I thought that maybe blockchain could do something unique that would cause the value to rise an appreciable amount. Or at the very least that it sounded like something that would get the tech sector excited and that alone would be enough to build enough hype around it that many more people would buy it causing the price to go up.

In my mind it seemed cheap enough to try a $1000 gamble and just hold long, long term ignoring the fluctuations and either this will be worth 0 or it will maybe be worth a boatload in the far future. That was always my idea and goal from day 1.

I mean I invest tens of thousands in the stock market and real-estate every year. This was just a tiny and wild gamble, but I don't think it was a dumb or foolish decision at the time given my financial position at the time and the amount involved.
Ask HN: Has ChatGPT-5.1 Regressed?
by pedrozieg | 2025-12-09 14:41:24+00:00
I’ve noticed that the quality of ChatGPT-5.1 occasionally drops substantially. I’m talking GPT-3 level hallucinations - wildly making stuff up or randomly inserting words in a language I do not speak.

In my repeat evaluations on the same datasets the scores are all over the place, sometimes scoring really high and sometimes doing very badly.

Has anyone experienced something similar?

I’m guessing this may be because “GPT-5.1” can sometimes choose to use a much smaller model, but for production use this makes it unreliable.
by larubbio | 2025-12-09 14:41:28+00:00
I do something similar for my kids, but offline using GNUCash. It's from a book called "The Bank of Dad."

I track their funds, and provide a generous monthly interest rate. The idea was both to teach them how to manage money, and demonstrate compounding interest.

This looks really interesting, and if you could add different interest calculations that would be a nice addition.
by tialaramex | 2025-12-09 14:42:21+00:00
I remember when it hadn't come out and there were mostly images and speculation I was really concerned that Lindelof had no idea what he's doing. A friend who watches a lot more TV than me insisted when it did release that it was very good, and reluctantly I agreed to watch Episode 1, and I knew immediately he got it and I was hooked. Watchmen is about masks, what masks mean, what it means when people wear masks, and Lindelof's TV show takes this somewhere the original book didn't but still remains about masks.

I knew about Tulsa, about Black Wall Street but I didn't know there was actually a plane. I was like, "That's surely creative license" when I saw it. But nope, the racists actually had a fucking plane.
by anyonecancode | 2025-12-09 14:42:35+00:00
> I still remember in the early 2000s Barnes and Noble would still have massive shelf space devoted to every technical topic you could imagine.

B&N, and Borders, are how I learned to code. Directionless after college, I thought, hey, why not learn how to make websites? And I'd spend a lot of time after work reading books at these stores (and yes, buying too).
by throw0101d | 2025-12-09 14:43:03+00:00
> vast vast (vaaast) majority of businesses are in that 1-100 nodes range.

Yes, but even the Proxmox folks themselves say the most they've seen is 51:

* https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/the-maximum-number-of-node...

I'm happily running some Proxmox now, and wouldn't want to got more than a dozen hypervisor or so. At least not in one cluster: that's partially what PDM 1.0 is probably about.

I have run OpenStack with many dozens of hypervisors (plus dedicated, non-hyperconverged Ceph servers) though.
by sharp-dev | 2025-12-09 14:43:38+00:00
*TL;DR:* Built a custom AI code reviewer for GitHub Enterprise using Go + AWS Bedrock. Naive approaches failed (hallucinations, rate limits, context overflow). Solved it with a two-phase architecture: AI picks relevant files first, then reviews focused context. Cost dropped from ~$300/mo to ~$30/mo. Code samples included.
by zoomablemind | 2025-12-09 14:43:48+00:00
"...C is my favorite language and I love the freedom and exploration it allows me. I also love that it is so close to Assembly and I love writing assembly for much of the same reasons!"

I wonder what is author's view about user's reasons to choose a C API?

What I mean is users may want exactly the same freedom and immediacy of C that the author embraces. However, the very approach to encapsulation by hiding the layout of the memory, the use of accessor functions limits the user's freedom and robs them of performance too.

In my view, the choice of using C in projects comes with certain responsibilities and expectations from the user. Thus higher degree of trust to the API user is due.
by bluGill | 2025-12-09 14:43:57+00:00
I disagree. Prefer integration tests to unit tests where ever possible. If your tests run fast - which most integration tests should be able to do; and you are running your tests often - there is no downside. Your tests run fast and since you run them often you always know what broke: the last thing you changed.

Fixtures done right ensure that everyone starts with a good standard setup. The question is WHAT state the fixture setups. I have a fixture that setups a temporary data directory with nothing in it - you can setup your state, but everything will read from that temporary data directory.

Unit tests do have a place, but most of us are not writing code that has a strong well defined interface that we can't change. As such they don't add much value since changes to the code also imply changes to the code that uses them. When some algorithm is used in a lot of places unit tests it well - you wouldn't dare change it anyway, but when the algorithm is specific to the one place that calls it then there is no point in a separate test for it even though you could. (there is a lot of grey area in the middle where you may do a few unit tests but trust the comprehensive integration tests)

> Worst case verify that it called some mocks with x,y,z.

That is the worst case to avoid if at all possible (sometimes it isn't) that a function is called is an implementation details. Nobody cares. I've seen too many tests fail because I decided to change a function signature and now there is a new parameter A that every test needs to be updated to expect. Sometimes this is your only choice, but mock heavy tests are a smell in general and that is really what I'm against. Don't test implementation details, test what the customers care about is my point, and everything else follows from that (and where you have a different way that follows from that it may be a good think I want to know about!)
by antonymoose | 2025-12-09 14:43:57+00:00
If you have to pass data up and down, back-and-forth the chain and rely on mutation, sure, yes. That’s ball-of-yarn in a nutshell. There is such a thing as reducto ad absurdum in software.

Nevertheless I’ve found far more God classes that could be refactored into clean layers than the other way around. Specifically in the context of Rails style web app as GP is specially discussing. Batteries included doesn’t necessarily require large tangled God classes. One can just as well compose a series of layers into a strong default implementation that wraps complex behavior while allowing one to bail-out and recompose with necessary overrides, for example reasonable mocks in a test context.

Of course this could then allow one to isolate and test individual units easily, and circle back with an integration test of the overall component.
by VWWHFSfQ | 2025-12-09 14:44:00+00:00
I feel like those laws are different because they specifically target pornography, which is seen as an evangelical moral sin. They would prefer to ban it completely, but that most likely runs afoul of the Constitution. So their next best bet is just to try to limit it to over-18s.

Obviously the end result is the same, but I think the motivation is different.
by tgv | 2025-12-09 14:44:30+00:00
It's bloody obvious how damaging social media, especially on mobile devices, is to everyone's mental state. Check out what teachers have to say about the attention span of the current generation pupils. But no, your access to whatever it is you're addicted to is more important.

Anyway, the government can already take away your bank account. No need for them to introduce such a complex scheme.