MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by arghwhat | 2025-12-03 13:29:42+00:00
You misunderstand - almost every tradesman here drives their work vehicle home and drives errands in it. Use of the company vehicle for commuting is considered a standard perk of these trades for regular employees - free fuel (fuel is way more expensive here), they can some days drive straight to the first customer (saves time), and might save them from getting a car (maybe the spouse has a microcar for their commute, otherwise biking and public transport are common).

Source: I live here and see it every day. Family, friends and customers are doing it, plus many eons ago I too was a tradesman driving home every day in the company work van.

(Heck, many companies wouldn't even have a place to park all their company cars at once, many such smaller companies run out of regular residential buildings with no dedicated parking.)
by gf000 | 2025-12-03 13:30:09+00:00
Feel free to provide some evidence. Like really, I would be interested in examples e.g. from the Java stdlib that are significantly more verbose than another generic purpose language.

But I do know that you are meaning stuff like AbstractFactoryFactory, but you do realize that there is zero need to write anything like that and you can (and people do) write bad code in any language?
by ethbr1 | 2025-12-03 13:30:38+00:00
The problem with that is always people.

Because one person is judging that "terribleness" before being entitled to flame, changes to that person influence their ability to objectively make that assessment.

Say, when their project becomes popular, they gain more power and fame, and suddenly their self-image is different.

Hence it usually being a more community-encouraging approach to keep discussions technical without vitriol.

Flaming is unnecessarily disruptive, not least because it gives other (probably not as talented) folks a license to also put their worst impulses to text.
by gjulianm | 2025-12-03 13:30:57+00:00
3blue1brown, while they create great content, they do not go as deep into the mathematics, they avoid some of the harder to understand complexities and abstractions. Don't take me wrong, it's not a criticism of their content, it's just a different thing than what you'd study in a mathematics class.

Also, an additional thing is that videos are great are making people think they understand something when they actually don't.
by flohofwoe | 2025-12-03 13:31:03+00:00
> I always code with the mindset “the compiler is smarter than me.”

...I don't know... for instance the MSVC compiler creates this output for the last two 'non-trivial' functions with '/Ox':

add w8,w1,w0 cmp w0,#0 cseleq w0,w1,w8

Even beginner assembly coders on their first day wouldn't write such bullshit :)

A better mindset is "don't trust the compiler for code that's actually performance sensitive".

You shouldn't validate each line of compiler output, but at least for the 'hot areas' in the code base that definitely pays off, because sometimes compilers do really weird shit for no good reason (often because of 'interference' between unrelated optimizer passes) - and often you don't need to dig deep to stumble over weird output like in the example above.
by embedding-shape | 2025-12-03 13:31:13+00:00
Try various downloadable weights that has Vision, they're all good at different examples, running multiple ones and then finally something to aggregate/figure out the right one usually does the trick. Some recent ones to keep in the list: ministral-3-14b-reasoning, qwen3-vl-30b, magistral-small-2509, gemma-3-27b

Personally I found magistral-small-2509 to be overall most accurate, but it completely fails on some samples, while qwen3-vl-30b doesn't struggle at all with those same samples. So seems training data is really uneven depending on what exactly you're trying to OCR.

And the trade-off of course is that these are LLMs so not exactly lightweight nor fast on consumer hardware, but at least with the approach of using multiple you greatly increase the accuracy.
by sjw987 | 2025-12-03 13:31:27+00:00
I think people look down on cyclists on British roads.

Everybody I see driving around me seems in a rush, act as if the roads are exclusively for cars (despite the Highway Code reiterating recently that the pecking order is most to least vulnerable), and get annoyed at some perceived hold up should they be unable to overtake (a minority of the time).

Sometimes I think it might even be as simple as an anti-fitness / jealousy thing. I'm abused more often when I'm running and cycling than any other point in my day. Anecdotally I've heard that the abuse and animosity is even worse for women doing both of these activities, than what I've experienced.
by deaux | 2025-12-03 13:31:37+00:00
99% of people who use it do so because of A. existing agreements wrt compliance and billing (including credits, spend agreements etc.) B. IAM/org permissioning structures that they already have set up.

> Isn't the API worse

No, for general inference the norm is to use provider-agnostic libraries that paper over individual differences. And if you're doing non-standard stuff? Throw the APIs at Opus or something.

> Aren't the p95 latencies worse?

> The costs higher?

The costs for Anthropic models are the same, and the p95 latencies are not higher, they're more stable if anything. The open weights models do look a bit more expensive but as said many businesses don't pay sticker price for AWS spend or they find it worth it anyway.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-12-03 13:32:42+00:00
I say this as someone who has been cautioning about Microsoft's ownership of GitHub for years now... but the Zig community has been high drama lately. I thought the Rust community had done themselves a disservice with their high tolerance of drama, but lately Zig seems to me to be more drama than even Rust.

I was saddened to see how they ganged up to bully the author of the Zig book. The book author, as far as I could tell, seems like a possibly immature teenager. But to have a whole community gang up on you with pitch forks because they have a suspicion you might use AI... that was gross to watch.

I was already turned off by the constant Zig spam approach to marketing. But now that we're getting pitchfork mobs and ranty anti-AI diatribes it just seems like a community sustaining itself on negative energy. I think they can possibly still turn it around but it might involve cleaning house or instituting better rules for contributors.
by mistersquid | 2025-12-03 13:32:54+00:00
> Many others in this thread have pointed out IBM's achievements but regardless, IBM is far from "zero for three".

I was specifically commenting in the context of this thread.* I was not trying to characterize either IBM or Meta except with reference to the arguments offered by this thread’s ancestors.

I understood (and understand) that such scorekeeping of a company as storied as IBM is at best reductive and at worst misrepresentative.

* Your reference to “this thread” actually addresses sibling comments to OP (ggggp), not this thread which was started by gggp.
by swiftcoder | 2025-12-03 13:33:35+00:00
> And honestly, E2EE's strict definition (messages between user 1 and user 2 cannot be decrypted by message platform)... Is unambiguously possible for chatGPT. It's just utterly pointless when user2 happens to also be the message platform.

This is basically the whole thrust of Apple's Private Cloud Compute architecture. It is possible to build a system that prevents user2 from reading the chats, but it's not clear that most companies want to work within those restrictions.

> If you message support for $chat_platform (if there is such a thing) do you expect them to be unable to read the messages?

If they marketed it as end-to-end encrypted? 100%, unambiguously, yes. And certainly not without I, as the user, granting them access permissions to do so.
by fragmede | 2025-12-03 13:33:54+00:00
> Google was better but it wasn't far superior to AltaVista is what I remember.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I remember it being significantly better. Alta Vista, you'd have to dig into page 8 before getting to the good stuff. History is written by the victors, as they say, but I remember Google search results being significantly better than Altavista. It wouldn't be until two decades later that I got to work there though.
by lapcat | 2025-12-03 13:34:18+00:00
> If he's sanctioned for being a Putin affiliate or whatever

Unless you have specific incriminating evidence, please don't present this hypothetical nonsense as if it's a real possibility. Here's more information about the author: https://blog.kulman.sk/about/

What a shame that comments keep mentioning Russia just because the author's name is not "John Smith" or something.
by Glemkloksdjf | 2025-12-03 13:34:41+00:00
For sure. But they also have high volumne and know how to do everything.

Also certain companies normally don't like to do things themselves if they don't have to.

Nonetheless nvidia is were it is because it has cude and an ecoysystem. Everyone uses this ecosystem and then you just run that stuff on the bigger version of the same ecosystem.
by csoups14 | 2025-12-03 13:34:46+00:00
Any analysis of Github's functionality that begins and ends with blaming individuals and their competency is deeply mistaken while being insulting. Anyone who has ever worked at a large company knows exactly how hard it is for top performers to make changes and it's not difficult because the other people are stupid. At least in my experience, almost everyone holding this "they must be stupid" opinion knows very little about how large organizations make decisions and knows very little about how incentives at different levels of an org chart leads to suboptimal decisions and results. I would agree with you that being overly polite helps no one, but being correct does, and what they initially wrote isn't even right and it's also insulting. There's no value in that.
by n00bs | 2025-12-03 13:34:53+00:00
It might be related to this repo: https://github.com/igorkulman/AppStoreCrawler

Apple’s terms explicitly prohibit using automated tools to scrape or analyze App Store data, even if it’s done outside an app. When they flag something like that, they usually don’t explain the reason — partly because they don’t want to expose how they evaluate developer activity or link accounts to external projects.

Not saying it’s definitely the cause, but it’s one plausible explanation the author was denied.
by theshrike79 | 2025-12-03 13:34:58+00:00
Is it a meritocracy if you need to pay a monthly fee for a chance to access it?

Someone in northern India definitely can't afford a Max tier Claude subscription, no matter how smart they are. Hell, even many so called middle class people in "the west" can't justify the cost.

That's not a "meritocracy" where people advance purely on merit.
by tmtvl | 2025-12-03 13:34:59+00:00
Could be that other marques have better advertising. Could be that other marques have more attractive design. Or could be that people don't know that Volvos are 40% safer. Could be that demand outpaces production, so people can't buy them. Could be that people are suicidal and want less safe cars (funnily enough leading to fewer safe cars).
by seethishat | 2025-12-03 13:35:11+00:00
I think the limit has been exceeded. That's the primary reason everything sort of sucks now. There is no time to slow down and do things right (or better).

IMO, cyber security, for example, will have to become a government mandate with real penalties for non-compliance (like seat belts in cars were mandated) in order to force organizations to slow down, and make sure systems are built carefully and as correctly as possible to protect data.

This is in conflict with the hurtling pace of garbage in/garbage out AI generated stuff we see today.
by tikotus | 2025-12-03 13:36:06+00:00
I'd rather phrase it as "code is straight out of GitHub, but tailored to match your data structures"

That's at least how I use it. If I know there's a library that can solve the issue, I know an LLM can implement the same thing for me. Often much faster than integrating the library. And hey, now it's my code. Ethical? Probably not. Useful? Sometimes.

If I know there isn't a library available, and I'm not doing the most trivial UI or data processing, well, then it can be very tough to get anything usable out of an LLM.
by gjulianm | 2025-12-03 13:36:15+00:00
> I suspect they do so as a means of gatekeeping

I'm surprised at how could you get at this conclusion. Formalisms, esoteric language and syntax are hard for everyone. Why would people invest in them if their only usefulness was gatekeeping? Specially when it's the same people who will publish their articles in the open for everyone to read.

A more reasonable interpretation is that those fields use those things you don't like because they're actually useful to them and to their main audience, and that if you want to actually understand those concepts they talk about, that syntax will end up being useful to you too. And that a lack of syntax would not make things easier to understand, just less precise.
by IgorPartola | 2025-12-03 13:36:26+00:00
I am not convinced of this. Being rude and insulting someone’s intelligence is rarely a good trait. Linus got away with it due to the unique circumstances: leader of an incredibly popular open source project and a gatekeeper to a lot of access to it.

My argument against how he handles things has always been that while it may seem effective, we do not know how much more effective he would be if he did not curse people out for being dumb fucks.

And it doesn’t seem like this is a requirement for the job: lots of other project leaders treat others with courtesy and respect and it doesn’t seem to cause issues.

The reality is that it is easy to wish more people were verbally abusive to others when it isn’t directed at you. But soon as you are on the receiving end of it, especially as a volunteer, there is a greater than not chance that you will be less likely to want to continue contributing.
by zeratax | 2025-12-03 13:37:38+00:00
I don't get why you do not understand why nobody wants to waste time on a MR where the author didn't even themselves have any interest on looking over it even once. https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369/files#diff-bc37d03... also all the unused functions...

did it fix a long time issue? maybe, but 9 tests for 13k lines doesnt give much confidence in that

and even if it worked perfectly, who will maintain this?
by foobarian | 2025-12-03 13:38:21+00:00
You know, I was just thinking a headset like Oculus would be pretty great for night driving if it was sensitive enough; my night vision is getting really bad and coupled with most new cars having annoyingly bright LED lamps with auto-high beams it's getting super uncomfortable to drive in the dark. Then that would automatically shield eyes from lasers!

One could go further, and have an integrated system where the headset shows video feed from cameras around the car. You could almost get a 3rd person view of your own car like in video games.
by Sesse__ | 2025-12-03 13:38:54+00:00
> In the examples given, it’s much faster, but is that mostly due to the missing indexes?

You're saying “the missing indexes” as if you could add indexes for every join you're ever doing and that this would be faster than a hash join. For many systems, that's not feasible nor very performant; and depending on selectivity, hash join would often be better than an index lookup anyway.

The biggest win from early aggregation is that you can reduce the number of rows significantly before you go join in other things (which would be a win even in nested-loop index lookup joins; smaller joins are nearly always better along every axis).
by milowata | 2025-12-03 13:39:30+00:00
The missing piece here is Anthropic is not playing the same game. Consumer branding and larger user base are concerns for OpenAI vs Google. Personal chatbot/companion/ search isn’t their focus.

Anthropic is going for the enterprise and for developers. They have scooped up more of the enterprise API market than either Google or OpenAI, and almost half the developer market. Those big, long contracts and integration into developer workflows can end up as pretty strong moats.
by zarzavat | 2025-12-03 13:39:37+00:00
Yes but National Security Letters make that pointless. You can't encrypt away a legal obligation. The point of e2ee is that a provider can say to the feds "this is all the information we have", and removing the e2ee would be noticed by security researchers.

If the provider controls one of the ends then the feds can instruct them to tap that end and nobody is any the wiser.

The best you can do is either to run the inference in an outside jurisdiction (hard for large scale AI), or to attempt a warrant canary.
by bayindirh | 2025-12-03 13:39:57+00:00
~800 members? That's great to hear actually. I like Codeberg and want them to succeed and be protected from outside effects.

That's said, I believe my comparison checks out. Having ~800 members is a useful moat, and will deter actors from harming Codeberg.

OTOH, the mechanism can still theoretically work. Of course Microsoft won't try something that blatant, but if the e.V loses this moat, there are mechanisms which Microsoft can and would like to use as Codeberg gets more popular.
by skeeter2020 | 2025-12-03 13:40:37+00:00
I think this persists because in most studies, 25 - and other specific ages for further stages - comes from plotting a distribution of the traits being analyzed and pulling averages from that. We like precision and fixate on the numbers but they really mean "the majority of the observed change under study appears to occurr within a specific range" but that does not make catchy headlines for the public.
by __MatrixMan__ | 2025-12-03 13:40:39+00:00
If you haunt the pull requests of projects you use I bet you'll find there's a new species of PR:

> I'm not an expert in this language or this project but I used AI to add a feature and I think its pretty good. Do you want to use it?

I find myself writing these and bumping into others doing the same thing. It's exciting, projects that were stagnant are getting new attention.

I understand that a maintainer may not want to take responsibility for new features of this sort, but its easier than ever to fork the project and merge them yourself.

I noticed this most recently in https://github.com/andyk/ht/pulls which has two open (one draft) PRs of that sort, plus several closed ones.

Issues that have been stale for years are getting traction, and if you look at the commit messages, it's AI tooling doing the work.

People feel more capable to attempt contributions which they'd otherwise have to wait for a specialist for. We do need to be careful not to overwhelm the specialists with such things, as some of them are of low quality, but on the whole it's a really good thing.

If you're not noticing it, I suggests hanging out in places where people actually share code, rather than here where we often instead brag about unshared code.
by arghwhat | 2025-12-03 13:41:17+00:00
Not sure if this is what they did, but you can just put all the things you need together sequentially into a single file and rely on the filesystem to allocate contiguous blocks where possible (using the appropriate size hints to help). It's trivial unpack at loading time without any performance impact.

A filesystem is by itself just one big "file" acting like a file archive.
by zero0529 | 2025-12-03 13:41:39+00:00
I agree partially.

I do think that it was weird to focus on the AI aspect so much. AI is going to pollute everything going forward whether you like it or not. And honestly who cares, either it is a good ressource for learning or it’s not. You have to decide that for yourself and not based on whether AI helped writing it.

However I think some of the critique was because he stole the code for the interactive editor and claimed he made it himself, which of course you shouldn’t do.
by jackfranklyn | 2025-12-03 13:42:02+00:00
The interesting thing about Zig's move isn't really the drama - it's watching a project work through platform migration in real time.

Most open source projects talk about reducing GitHub dependency but never actually do it because the switching costs are brutal. Issues, PRs, CI integrations, contributor muscle memory - it all adds up. Codeberg is solid but the network effects aren't there yet.

Curious whether this pushes other projects to at least have contingency plans. The AI training concerns are real, but I suspect the bigger long-term risk is just platform enshittification in general - feature bloat, performance degradation, mandatory upsells.
by austin-cheney | 2025-12-03 13:42:17+00:00
I have spent most of my career with seniors that cannot stand up a new application of any size. The reductio ad absurdem of it is that most seniors today can trace their expertise two distinct areas: 1) superior refinement of basic literacy, 2) configuration of external tools. This is the direct result of business attempting to game economics by pushing cost centers out of their organization thereby resulting in a more factory like environment of hire/fire and then config and go. From a cost perspective this has worked masterfully, but the other side of that coin is that expertise is lost and never recovered.

As an experiment look at the hiring board for new YC companies. https://www.workatastartup.com/

Some of these companies actually are focused on product first, but most are focused on idea exploration and sales while building out the product as necessary. I understand that sales make money and code does not, but sales still isn't a product. Focusing on product first is a luxury only available to those that can do so from prior experience and with the confidence that user acquisition is more readily available to their product offering.
by kragen | 2025-12-03 13:42:26+00:00
I largely agree, but I'll take the opportunity to fill in some of the other gaps in the conversation.

I didn't mean that you could 3-D print tiny laparoscopes or even visible-light metamaterials; I meant that you could 3-D print machines for making tiny laparoscopes and visible-light metamaterials.

I agree that FDM-like 3-D printing is not currently attractive for feature sizes many times larger than the nozzle size. You'd need printers with thousands or millions of "hotends".

With respect to biological applications of 3-D printing, I think you're overlooking the part of the iceberg that's currently below the waterline of economic feasibility. Biological applications of 3-D printing are frequently highly-price-insensitive one-offs that cannot scale because people don't even consider the things that will become possible when prices drop by a factor of a billion or a trillion.
by gaigalas | 2025-12-03 13:42:27+00:00
we stole the promethean fire

humans won't have to work again

the spark of intelligence is now living in machines

by the way, we still have to make small annoying interruptions to digital content to display ads, everything falls apart if we don't do that

--

Something feels off in this whole idea. I think you guys are overestimating the importance of AI. It's just another commodity.