MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by aiibe | 2025-12-01 09:45:02+00:00
Writing and updating CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md feels like pointless to me. Humans are the real audience for documentation. The code changes too fast, and LLMs are stateless anyway. What’s been working is just letting the LLM explore the relevant part of the code to acquire the context, defining the problem or feature, and asking for a couple of ways to tackle it. All in a one short prompt. That usually gets me solid options to pick and build it out. And always do, one session for one problem. This is my lazy approach to getting useful help from an LLM.
by cachius | 2025-12-01 09:45:13+00:00
Awesome!

After [copying over .dll and importing .reg files], you will already be able to open these shell locations with the following commands: NT Object Namespace: explorer.exe shell:::{845b0fb2-66e0-416b-8f91-314e23f7c12d} System Registry: explorer.exe shell:::{1c6d6e08-2332-4a7b-a94d-6432db2b5ae6} If you want to add these folders in My Computer, just like in ReactOS, add these 2 CLSIDs to the following location: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MyComputer\NameSpace

Seems ReactOS holds some goodies even for long time Windows users!
by ben_w | 2025-12-01 09:45:51+00:00
There's a reason this is comedy:

Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.

While this is religious:

[24] “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. [26] And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. [27] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Humans build not on each other's slop, but on each other's success.

Capitalism, freedom of expression, the marketplace of ideas, democracy: at their best these things are ways to bend the wisdom of the crowds (such as it is) to the benefit of all; and their failures are when crowds are not wise.

The "slop" of capitalism is polluted skies, soil and water, are wage slaves and fast fashion that barely lasts one use, and are the reason why workplace health and safety rules are written in blood. The "slop" of freedom of expression includes dishonest marketing, libel, slander, and propaganda. The "slop" of democracy is populists promising everything to everyone with no way to deliver it all. The "slop" of the marketplace of ideas is every idiot demanding their own un-informed rambling be given the same weight as the considered opinions of experts.

None of these things contributed our social, technological, or economic advancement, they are simply things which happened at the same time.

AI has stuff to contribute, but using it to make an endless feed of mediocrity is not it. The flood of low-effort GenAI stuff filling feeds and drowning signal with noise, as others have said: just give us your prompt.
by p2detar | 2025-12-01 09:46:52+00:00
> because lately I've seen this complete erasure of the moral dimension from AI and tech, and to me that's a very scary development.

But that is exactly what the "is ought problem" manifests, or? If morals are "oughts", then oughts are goal-dependent, i.e. they depend on personally-defined goals. To you it's scary, to others it is the way it should be.
by mschuster91 | 2025-12-01 09:47:20+00:00
> Ideally I want a job outside my wheelhouse to learn and move forward, but it seems like no one these days is interested in any sort of training.

No one has the resources left to pay for it, that's the thing. Clients are cutting budgets because no one is buying their stuff, so everyone is looking for seniors and above only, and replacing juniors/intermediates with AI.

Trickle-down ideology is now beginning to eat itself, the ouroboros is complete - turns out, eventually the entire economy will crash down on itself when people can't afford things. Even Henry Ford already knew this...
by netdevphoenix | 2025-12-01 09:47:27+00:00
I believe this is not a binary question, there is a spectrum. I think of LLMs as a sophisticated variation of a Chinese room. The LLMs are given statistical rules to apply to the given input and generate an output. The rules encode some of the patterns that we call thinking uses and so, some of their responses can be interpreted as thinking. But then, again, in certain conditions, the responses of mammals, unicellular organisms and even systems unrelated to carbon based life forms can be thought to be performing what we vaguely call thinking.

One problem is that we don't have a clear definition of thinking and my hunch is that we will never have a clear cut one as it falls in the same category of phenomena like alive/death states, altered states and weather systems. One hidden assumption that I often see implied in the usages of this word is that the word "thinking" implies some sort of "agency" which is another vague term normally ascribed to motile life forms.

All in all I think this debate ensues from trying to emulate something that we don't fundamentally understand.

Imagine in a world where medicine has not advanced and we lack any knowledge of human biology, we are trying to create artificial life forms by creating some heat resistant balloon and having it take in and push air. Someone would argue that the globe is alive because there is something in that taking in air and pushing it out that is like what humans do.
by orwin | 2025-12-01 09:47:45+00:00
That's the average. Please compare the median wealth (especially seeing the absurd paper wealth of crypto bro and stock influencers who are almost exclusively millennials).

[Edit] also inflation is calculated based on average consumption. So you will notice that toys, clothing and electronic devices (TVs, cooking robots), all cheaper and cheaper (due to enshitiffication and quality decrease) count more for inflation than education, cars, housing and probably a lot of other stuff a 25-35 yo care more about.
by tempfile | 2025-12-01 09:49:05+00:00
Is this really common behaviour? I do not recognise it. Do people lie? Certainly yes. Do people misremember, or get details incorrect? Yes. But when was the last time you saw someone, say, fabricate an entire citation in a paper? People make transcription errors, they misremember dates, and they deliberately lie. But I don't think people accidentally invent entire facts.
by imtringued | 2025-12-01 09:49:56+00:00
> I’m referring to his claim that “it’s hard to see how” 7 to 10 degrees C of global warming “could lead directly to civilisational collapse.” He proceeds to assert that, while “climatic instability is generally bad for agriculture,” his “best guess” is that “even with fifteen degrees of warming, the heat would not pass lethal limits for crops in most regions.”

Do these people not understand that crops need water? Higher temperatures mean higher evaporation rates. Vast swathes of Iran have become inhospitable due to water mismanagement. That will lead to millions of refugees fleeing the country. Climate change is like poverty in this respect. If you're poor in water, you can't afford to make any mistakes.

Longtermism is a curse to long term thinking. You're not allowed to think about the next ten thousand years of humanity, because apparently that's too short of a window.

Not just that. This type of thinking is a contradiction of optimal control theory. Your model needs to produce an uninterrupted chain from the present to the future. Longtermism chops the present off, which means the initial state is in the future. You end up with an unknown initial state to which the Longtermists then respond by with hacks: They are adding a minimal set of constraints back. That minimal set is the avoidance of extinction, which is to say they are fine with almost everything.

Based on that logic, you'd think that Longtermists would be primarily concerned with colonizing planets in the solar system and building resilient ecosystems on earth so that they can be replicated on other planets or in space colonies, but you see no such thing. Instead they got their brains fried by the possibility of runaway AI [0] and the earth is treated as a disposable consumable to be thrown away.

[0] The AI they worry about is extremely narrow. Tesla doors that can't be opened in an emergency due to battery loss don't count as runaway AI, but if you had to beg the Tesla car AI to open the door and the AI refused, that would be worthy of AI safety research. However, they wouldn't see the problem in the inappropriate use of AI where it shouldn't be used in the first place.
by pona-a | 2025-12-01 09:49:58+00:00
The point of cryptographic identity is, unless the primitives were fundamentally flawed, there be no way to recover it without the key material. Otherwise it's just another means of access control, like say a passkey or an ssh key, which are convenient but we usually allow some recovery options with.

Yes, it takes hard discipline--which may lapse no matter the level of experience--to setup offsite recovery with true cryptographic secrets, but it is possible. You can say backup a KeePass file to BackBlaze, protected by a 7-word passphrase. Now all you need for recovery is access to BackBlaze (so same as a centralized service) and your memory of the passphrase, with no one but you having access.

I don't know what the stakes are for most social media accounts or websites. But wouldn't it bring some peace of mind if say Graphene's registrar couldn't just press one button to serve malware on grapheneos.org, which you won't detect until you compare the hashes with say Twitter?
by kace91 | 2025-12-01 09:50:42+00:00
>I mean do plumbers have an advent of plumbing where they try and unblock shit filled toilets for fun?

No, but you’ll see it for writers, musicians, and the like.

Engineering (software or not) can be an intellectually rewarding experience for many. I don’t know why some people find this something to scoff at, would you rather have no pleasure derived from your work?
by allenz_cheung | 2025-12-01 09:52:28+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm one of the creators of CodeProt. We built this because we were frustrated with existing AI code review tools. They usually suffer from two extremes: either they miss obvious bugs, or more commonly, they spam PRs with hallucinated 'improvements' and stylistic nitpicks that waste time.

We designed CodeProt to be *low-noise by design*.

*How it works:* Instead of just feeding a diff to an LLM, we use a multi-agent architecture that analyzes the full repository context. * *Context-Aware:* It understands the surrounding code, not just the changed lines, to prevent suggestions that break existing patterns. * *Noise Suppression:* We implemented a verification layer that filters out low-confidence suggestions. We aim for high precision (currently ~94%) rather than high recall of trivial issues. * *Incremental Review:* It tracks changes across commits in a PR, so it doesn't re-review code you haven't touched.

*Privacy & Security:* We know sending code to the cloud is a sensitive topic. CodeProt is built with a zero-trust architecture. We use end-to-end encryption and have strict data retention policies. We don't train our models on your code.

*Features:* * Automated PR descriptions (to save you typing). * One-click apply for suggestions. * Integrates directly with GitHub and GitLab.

We'd love to hear your feedback. What makes an AI reviewer actually useful to you vs. just another bot to mute?

Check it out at: https://codeprot.com/
by mschuster91 | 2025-12-01 09:52:44+00:00
> Unlike some of the US commenters, our high tax rates and lack of stock-options driven reward schemes means that most of us don't have enough money in the bank to casually found a startup.

That's because it effectively is gambling. Maybe if you are one of the first 50 employees in a startup that is one of 100 to reach "unicorn" stage, you have the chance to strike it big... but then you are 0.01% of all employees of startups.

The 99.99%? They'll have had their company fold or let them go due to the company "pivoting" or "having to look better in quarterly reports", they'll have left voluntarily for one reason or the other, or they'll have been let go right before the vesting period to save the company money and end up with nothing vested, or the company will have gone to three, four, five or more rounds of funding watering down existing options, or the company will have gone bust... all while having traded the "chance" of striking it big for lower pay, thus reducing payments into our tax, social security and healthcare systems.

Europe does not like gambling with the lives of its citizens and the stability of our systems.
by iso1631 | 2025-12-01 09:53:07+00:00
Take Magnus Brunner, responsible for Internal Affairs and Migration. The Austrian Government, headed by Karl Nehammer at the time I believe, provided him.

The head of the EU, who was nominated by the Austrian Government (and the other 26 governments) and elected by the MEPs in parliament (who were directly elected) decided on his portfolio.

Compare this to the US system, where the head of the US executive is elected by electors who themselves are directly elected. That head then appoints whoever they want.

If you were to make the US reflect the EU, you would have

1) Senate nominates the president (one vote per state)

2) Congress votes for the president

3) Senate provides the people to be secretaries

4) President selects from that list and chooses which person gets head of State, head of Treasury, etc

This would give more power to the states and less to the federal level, which itself is something many in the US want. Doesn't make it undemocratic.
by athrowaway3z | 2025-12-01 09:53:18+00:00
9. Get management to give you the authority to force users to rotate their AWS access keys which are 8 years old.

Saying "keys which are 8 years old" implies you're worried about the keys themselves, which is just wrong. (Their security state depends on monitoring)

You can definitely make a strong argument that the organization needs practice rotating, so I would advise reframing it as an org-survivability-planning challenge and not a key-security issue.
by ta20240528 | 2025-12-01 09:53:54+00:00
I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff.

Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC.

What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do?

- break him out? how?

- openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in?

- blow up civilians?

What?
by ta12653421 | 2025-12-01 09:54:48+00:00
Wow, i got downvoted for complaining about my cooking times on HackerNews, this is a real innovation:

so: - 5 min walk to supermarket - 10 min in there - 5 min walk back home - washing & cutting wedgetables 7 - 10 min - maybe cutting some meat: 5 min on top - eating 5 - 10 min - cleaning up the kitchen 5 min
by dsassoli09 | 2025-12-01 09:54:54+00:00
Coming from Github myself, I cannot imagine going back to it after using Gerrit for even just a few days.

The workflow in Gerrit really makes a lot of sense, unfortunately its the workflow in GitHub that has screwed up everyone's idea of what code review should look like[1], even by one of GitHub's co-founder own's admission.

[1] https://medium.com/@danielesassoli/how-github-taught-the-wor...
by benrutter | 2025-12-01 09:55:14+00:00
Yup, 100%. A lot of the comments here are "people should know better" - but in fairness to the people doing stupid things, they're being encouraged by the likes of Google, ChatGPT, Anthropic etc, to think of letting a indeterminate program run free on your hard drive as "not a stupid thing".

The amount of stupid things I've done, especially early on in programming, because tech-companies, thought-leaders etc suggested they where not stupid, is much large than I'd admit.
by mschuster91 | 2025-12-01 09:55:40+00:00
> If you can't sort this out in a couple years, then you have a real problem.

The problem is, we've been in an era of the polycrisis for decades - first 2007 the financial crisis thanks to the US subprime loan market, then the Euro crisis, then came the refugee crisis 2015, then the second refugee crisis 2018, then Covid, then the Russian invasion, then the Israel-Palestine war, and now Trump.

And the last three and a half crises are still going on simultaneously.

There has been no recovery period in which things could settle and those who got left behind could catch up, it was straight from one crisis to the next.
by wkat4242 | 2025-12-01 09:55:48+00:00
I love KDE. Especially because it gives me agency. I'm not stuck with the choices the developers made like with gnome that's super opinionated. And I find things easy to find and confuse.

It's probably not for a grandma but I don't care. It doesn't have to be. For me the more software is suitable for the mainstream, the less suitable it is to me.

Not sure what you mean by donation widget, I use KDE on FreeBSD as daily driver (and on the latest version) and I've never seen it. I donate monthly to KDE but it doesn't have any way of knowing that.
by alecco | 2025-12-01 09:56:24+00:00
Unpopular opinion: Evil and greedy insurers are not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is the socialized costs of sugar drinks, junk food, and sedentary life. The food industry operates like a drug cartel who starts the pipeline getting children addicted.

That combined with outrageously expensive magic pill healthcare. A situation partly caused because doctors can't tell patients they are too fat and lazy. Because feelings and hate-crime.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7524435/ (I think their 27% figure is way too conservative)

It's like the worst possible combination of free market capitalism/libertarianism with social liberalism.
by anthk | 2025-12-01 09:57:02+00:00
Victorian teletypes can be hooked to a serial port with a trivial adapter, at least enough to use CP/M and most single-case OS'es.

Also, some programming languages have a setting to export code compatible with just Baudot characters: http://t3x.org/nmhbasic/index.html

So, you could feed it from paper tape and maybe Morse too.
by georgefrowny | 2025-12-01 09:57:11+00:00
Surely the minifigure patent has expired? The original patent was in 1979 (design patent 253711: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD253711S/en)

Or are they doing a pharma and have repatented a small variation, or the European equivalent is still going?

Or is it actually trademark that is being enforced here?
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-12-01 09:57:58+00:00
> However, given just the weights, we don't have the source

This is incorrect, given the definitions in the license.

> (Apache 2.0) "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.

(emphasis mine)

In LLMs, the weights are the preferred form of making modifications. Weights are not compiled from something else. You start with the weights (randomly initialised) and at every step of training you adjust the weights. That is not akin to compilation, for many reasons (both theoretical and practical).

In general licenses do not give you rights over the "know-how" or "processes" in which the licensed parts were created. What you get is the ability to inspect, modify, redistribute the work as you see fit. And most importantly, you modify the work just like the creators modify the work (hence the preferred form). Just not with the same data (i.e. you can modify the source of chrome all you want, just not with the "know-how and knowledge" of a google engineer - the license can not offer that).

This is also covered in the EU AI act btw.

> General-purpose AI models released under free and open-source licences should be considered to ensure high levels of transparency and openness if their parameters, including the weights, the information on the model architecture, and the information on model usage are made publicly available. The licence should be considered to be free and open-source also when it allows users to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve software and data, including models under the condition that the original provider of the model is credited, the identical or comparable terms of distribution are respected.
by dsassoli09 | 2025-12-01 09:58:03+00:00
> I’m a little put off on the google connection but it seems like it could run rather independently.

Yeah, its actually a really healthy open-source project, google contributes usually around 40% of the code, but you have other companies like GerritForge(disclaimer, I work here), Nvidia, SAP, Qualcomm, Wikimedia foundation, all contributing heavily to it.
by dmurray | 2025-12-01 09:58:32+00:00
Yes, it's silly. They surely use orders of magnitude more consumables (latex gloves, plastic bottle tops for chemicals...) in preparing a batch of mosquito proboscides than the hypothetical nozzle would take up.

The university's marketing department has been instructed to emphasize sustainability in its press releases, and the website reporting it has, like most news organisations that have survived, made the choice not to hire journalists with critical thinking skills but to have them rephrase press releases.
by asdefghyk | 2025-12-01 09:58:36+00:00
The captain of a Qantas flight that suffered two computer-generated pitch down events, injuring more than 100 passengers in 2008, has questioned Airbus’s explanation for a similar incident on an A320 that led to the grounding of 6000 aircraft for a software fix. ...... Kevin Sullivan who captained flight QF72 on an A330 in October 2008, said there were many questions to be answered with respect to the A320 issue. ... ..... He said the uncommanded drop in altitude he experienced on flight QF72 was never fully explained with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau ruling out solar radiation after exhaustive tests. Paywalled article

So EXACTLY how was it determined that recent A320 event was caused by cosmic rays. I seems tha tit is not possible to make such a absolute determination.

It is possible to say however , that cosmic rays could cause such an event.

But how is it known that cosmic rays caused the recent A320 event and not some other error hidden in the software.???
by graemep | 2025-12-01 10:00:07+00:00
I am dubious about the importance of Youtube. If it disappeared tomorrow how long would it take for most videos to reappear elsewhere? Some of the creators I watch do have the videos available elsewhere. Veritasium is on Odysee, lots of people are on Nebula (and release videos there that are not on Youtube), etc.

I think there is a good argument that having a single dominant platform has been harmful.
by freehorse | 2025-12-01 10:00:21+00:00
"Abnormal" has a very specific meaning. It is not used for everything that is just uncommon. It is used for behaviours that are non-normative. If you have an idiosyncratic way you use this word, ok, but communication is supposed to require and assume a common understanding of a language. So there is no point to discuss if abnormal refers to frequency of a behaviour in a population or in a normativity-related judgement of it, because in common usage it refers to the latter, because either we do not speak a common language or I have to assume disingenuity here (and leaning towards the latter in this case).

If the topic is about whether homosexuality is non-normative and heterosexuality is normative (with the actual, common meanings of the words), we can have a philosophical discussion on that.