MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Hobadee | 2025-12-30 00:13:20+00:00
Steam games are still great as long as you approach it open-eyed as a long-term rental. You can get really good deals, and as a parent of 3 young boys, their family sharing is an amazing bonus that I didn't even consider when I started getting games ~20 years ago. I have definitely gotten my money's worth. (If you consider it akin to going to the movies or a theme park, rather than buying an object.)

Of course I vastly prefer GOG and try to get all games there, but GOG still only has a tiny fraction of the games I want to play.
by theli0nheart | 2025-12-30 00:13:20+00:00
This is a temporary situation. Think of it like how Napster let you download any song for free for a few years. For a while, all you heard was how the Internet was going to put all musicians out of business. Obviously that didn't happen.

The same will happen here. It's not like OpenAI has built a search engine; every time they need a live search they hit Bing (please correct me if I'm wrong) and get the results from there. No matter how you slice it, search companies who actually supply the data are going to get reimbursed, and since most users don't pay $20 / month, that likely means ads everywhere.

Also, Google's AI overviews are getting very good. Initially it was pretty inaccurate, but now it's basically 95% as good as ChatGPT, and faster. Most normies I talk to think it's good enough.
by majormajor | 2025-12-30 00:13:44+00:00
You say "My Claude Code Setup" but where is the actual setup there? I generally agree with everything about how LLMs should be called you say, but I don't see any concrete steps of changing Claude Code's settings in there? Where are the "35 agents. 68 skills. 234MB of context."? Is the implementation of the "Layer 4" programs intended to be left to the reader? That's hardly approachable.
by array_key_first | 2025-12-30 00:14:06+00:00
I'm talking like that because even you're not understanding the tradeoff.

The tradeoff isn't live like rats. That's the tradeoff RIGHT NOW, because we designed our cities for maximum suckage.

But really, you can have reasonable space and a decent commute. Light rail goes a long way, and not spending 50% of your land on parking lots does too.

When you design your cities around cars, there are really no winners. People might think that's just the natural cost of having a home, but it's just not. You can have denser cities with more space per person. Because, remember, most of the space in Houston is currently worthless. It can't actually be used by people.

So it's still dense where it matters. The pockets of goodness are just that. Between the roads and parking lots there's little dense pockets of life, and that's where everything actually happens.

Look, think of it this way. If we don't spend 50% of our most valuable space on parking lots, your home can be 50% larger. AND in an area where it matters, instead of in Timbuktu.
by myth2018 | 2025-12-30 00:14:17+00:00
I worked for a somewhat large bank that used to do this "system analysis" job at its beginnings. Don't recall how they called this process step, but the idea was the same. Besides the internal analysts, they used to hire consultancies full of experienced ladies and gentlemen to design larger projects before coding started.

Sometimes they were hired only to deliver specifications, sometimes the entire system. The software they delivered was quite stable, but that's beyond the point. There sure were software issues there, but I was impressed by how those problems were usually contained in their respective originating systems, rarely breaking other software. The entire process was clear enough and the interfaces between the fleet of windows/linux/mainframe programs were extremely well documented. Even the most disorganized and unprofessional third-party suppliers had an easier time writing software for us. It wasn't a joy, but it was rational, there was order. I'm not trying to romanticize the past, but, man, we sure un-learned a few things about how to build software systems
by ramoz | 2025-12-30 00:14:20+00:00
I struggle with these abstractions over context windows, esp when anthropic is actively focused on improving things like compaction, and knowing the eventual* goal is for the models to yave real memory layers baked in. Until then we have to optimize with how agents work best and ephemeral context is a part of that (they weren’t RL’d/trained with memory abstractions so we shouldn’t use them at inference either). Constant rediscovery that is task specific has worked well for me, doesn’t suffer from context decay, though it does eat more tokens.

Otherwise the ability to search back through history is a valuable simple (rip)grep/jq combo over the session directory. Simple example of mine: https://github.com/backnotprop/rg_history
by tanelpoder | 2025-12-30 00:15:21+00:00
At an old startup attempt we once created a nested hierarchy metrics visualization chart that I later ended up calling Bookshelf Charts, as some of the boxes filled with with smaller boxes looked like a bookshelf (if you tilted your head 90 degrees). Something between FlameGraphs and Treemaps. We also picked “random” colors for aesthetics, but it was interactive enough so you could choose a heat map color for the plotted boxes (where red == bad).

The source code got lost ages ago, but here are some screenshots of bookshelf graphs applied to SQL plan node level execution metrics:

https://tanelpoder.com/posts/sql-plan-flamegraph-loop-row-co...
by _the_inflator | 2025-12-30 00:15:43+00:00
I like the finetuning aspect to it quite a lot. It makes sense to me. What I achieved now is a very streamlined process of autonomous work of an agent, which can more and more often be simply managed than controlled on a code review level basis for everything.

I agree that this level of finetuning feels overwhelming and might let yourself doubting whether you do utilize Claude to its optimum and the beauty is, that finetunging and macro usage don't interfere, when you stay in your lane.

For example I now don't use the planing agent anymore instead incorporated this process into the normal agents much to the project's advantage. Consistency is key. Anthropic did the right thing.

Codex is quite a different beast and comes from the opposite direction so to say.

I use both, Codex and Claude Opus especially, in my daily work and found them complementary not mutual exclusive. It is like two different evangelists who are on par exercising with different tools to achieve a goal, that both share.
by AndyNemmity | 2025-12-30 00:16:10+00:00
I got similar feedback with my first blog post on my do router - https://vexjoy.com/posts/the-do-router/

Here is what I don't get. it's trivial to do this. Mine is of course customized to me and what I do.

The idea is to communicate the ideas, so you can use them in your own setup.

It's trivial to put for example, my do router blog post in claude code and generate one customized for you.

So what does it matter to see my exact version?

These are the type of things I don't get. If I give you my details, it's less approachable for sure.

The most approachable thing I could do would be to release individual skills.

Like I have skills for generating images with google nano banana. That would be approachable and easy.

But it doesn't communicate the why. I'm trying to communicate the why.
by sandblast2 | 2025-12-30 00:16:20+00:00
The expertise in software engineering typical in these promptfondling companies shine through this blog post.

Surely they know 100% code coverage is not a magical bullet because the code flow and the behavior can differ depending on the input. Just because you found a few examples which happen to hit every line of code you didn't hit every possible combination. You are living in a fool's paradise which is not a surprise because only fools believe in LLMs. You are looking for a formal proof of the codebase which of course no one does because the costs would be astronomical (and LLMs are useless for it which is not at all unique because they are useless for everything software related but they are particularly unusable for this).
by PaulHoule | 2025-12-30 00:16:24+00:00
Politics -- the bias for the old vs the new. It's taken forever for them to get the lead out of general aviation fuel in the most dangerous, bioavailable and highly dispersed forms there is even though (perhaps because) general aviation is a dying business that could reasonably be taken behind the woodshed and shot (with a lead bullet!) to make way for new industries like drones.

On the other hand, new and dynamic industries can bear the burden of switching to more ecological materials.
by 3eb7988a1663 | 2025-12-30 00:16:52+00:00
You do not need disenfranchisement, just apathetic voters who do not currently contribute. Right now there are ~23 million voters registered in California. 45% registered D, 25 %R, giving absolute numbers of 10 million D, and ~6 million R. Which you can handwave is 4 million Ds who know they do not need to contribute - their neighbor has their back to secure the state electoral votes.

Looking at the US as a whole, there are 44 million registered D with 37 million R. If you could round up all affiliated voters, Dems win the presidency every election if going by popular vote[0].

[0] https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-a...
by wahern | 2025-12-30 00:17:05+00:00
> If anything, there’s plenty of literature showing that social programs and tax exemptions on the poor make underpaying them possible to begin with.

That literature is playing fast & loose with terminology to justify a preexisting conclusion.

Anyhow, we know what life was like before Great Society programs, and it wasn't higher wages for the poor, we've just forgotten because it's been so successful. That memory hole oddly works in favor of both those who promote expanding welfare and those who oppose it.

> Walmart couldn’t pay $12/hr. if tax exemptions and SNAP and other aid didn’t fill the gap.

From a basic macro economic standpoint, most welfare programs push wages up by marginally reducing the labor pool. In a free market, how would Walmart be forced to pay a "livable wage" if entitlements didn't exist? Do you really think people would just choose not to work and starve if their wages didn't cover all their expenses? Out of spite? It doesn't make sense, and it certainly doesn't comport with history. It makes even less sense when people buy this argument yet also support minimum wage laws.

The counterexample is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC increases as your wages increase, theoretically incentivizing work, rather than diminishing as you earn more. This would increase labor supply. What tends to happen to prices (i.e. wages--price of labor) when supply increases but not demand? Presumably the more cogent literature bemoaning Walmart's labor practices is primarily relying on EITC while hoping the reader glosses over the distinction.
by apublicfrog | 2025-12-30 00:17:06+00:00
> complete moo point

Like a cows opinion - it doesn't matter?

> this is...a tool of entertainment (consumption) and not productivity as original intended.

And? I wrote BASIC as a kid, and everything I coded was for entertainment, not productivity.

The usability for him appears high. If you're building a tool just for yourself (or or fun), why does it matter?
by shimman | 2025-12-30 00:17:42+00:00
You can do this but you should also relinquish all voting rights of said companies. When companies like Blackrock, State Street, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc all sit on the same boards, you're going to get decisions being forced that may not be good for the company, workers, customers, or country. Doubly so when they're sitting on two competing companies boards.

You can allow mutual funds or ETFs or whatever similar instrument, but they should not be allowed to have a vote or say in the company.
by roadbuster | 2025-12-30 00:17:44+00:00
> Payroll taxes are inefficient

I agree, but governments intentionally shifted from corporate taxes (taxes on net, corporate income) to payroll taxes (taxes proportional to employee wages) because businesses were either finding creatives ways of deferring/diverting income, or they just weren't taking profit (and, thus, nothing to tax).

See the third graph here (yellow line vs. dark blue line)
https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-r...
by mikepurvis | 2025-12-30 00:18:02+00:00
It probably wasn't the worst thing ever to try to leverage some of the existing social networking going on on YouTube, but combining it with a real name policy and making the actual posts/comments into first class global content for the G+ feed? Idiotic, and completely undermined the whole premise of safely walling off your content to its intended audience.

(See also: nice how reddit now makes it possible to curate the list of which subs you participate in whose comments and posts appear on your global profile page)
by array_key_first | 2025-12-30 00:19:02+00:00
Many languages use perls regex engine, like PHP. And PHP is definitely faster than python, but that's a low bar and honestly no idea how the regex performance is.

But, I do know perl regex are very fast because they're compiled at build time. They can have high time complexity if you use lookback, but that's true of most regex implementations. Dynamic regex is definitely slower, but this is somewhat rare in most perl programs.

But, in general, perl is going to be much faster than python or bash. Bash because bash is one of the least efficient languages ever designed, forking for basic functionality, and python because python has truly awful performance characteristics.

But, I would argue, if you have a system with python, you should probably write PHP. It's faster than both and very convenient for shell scripting like things.

But if you don't have python or can't assume it, use perl. For the love of God, don't use bash.

Python has many uses, I just don't think system scripts or system utilities is one of them. That's C, perl, or bash land, and perl is clearly the frontrunner there.
by hadlock | 2025-12-30 00:19:18+00:00
The Farallones are a group of islands about ~27 miles, pretty much due west of the Golden Gate Bridge. They're not huge but you can see them with the naked eye from the top of Mt Diablo about 50 miles away. There's a scientific research station on the largest one but due to their rocky coast (and environmental law) they're difficult or impossible to visit by boat.
by TheAlchemist | 2025-12-30 00:19:27+00:00
Yeah, that was already almost 1 year after they were supposedly planning to have the top 5 compute ...

The reality is they announced that as a pipe dream. Just like the FSD, Robotaxi, Optimus and 10 other projects that will never work - or more precisely, they will work but >10 years from now, and it won't be from Tesla but from a competitor.
by gsf_emergency_6 | 2025-12-30 00:19:27+00:00
Its a pity that 搜狐 didn't mention the (5-1) _cardinal_ virtues[0]

Out of an abundance of caution, I'd wildly guess PH ("dyadically")

-Doesn't want to let us see him sweat (usage his)

-is still consulting the I-Ching^W Copilot on how to proceed

[0] tangential to the "last word on combinators", I'd note that the source-glyph for [virtuosity-]zero --"xin" in the Chinese^W 搜狐 moral compass-- has a possibly negative emotional valence. At least according to an unreliable "guru" of mine, it depicts a mute with a pipe shoved down his throat (~south indian communal version of modern Slavic phallic graffiti :)

So thoroughly vibing Kohut or Leucippus, that'd be bootstrapping (hallucinating?) one from zero? "A cut from no-cut"? To what extent is noncommutativity relevant here in your opinion? (Prepping ourselves for a Woah)

https://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/MathEd/index.php/2022/08/25/the...

Your greeks under the influence of hallucinogenic ethylene (what boffins understand today as the smoke of Delphic bongs) however... Speak like PH would like to..?

Another tactic would be to redirect your question about death to PH in another Newish stub ( as he certainly has vastly more rubs with Death than I)
by pca006132 | 2025-12-30 00:19:29+00:00
But this doesn't solve dependency hell. If the functionalities were loosely coupled, you can already vendor the code in and manually review them. If they are not, say it is a db, you still have to depend on that?

Or maybe you can use AI to vendor dependencies, review existing dependencies and updates. Never tried that, maybe that is better than the current approach, which is just trusting the upstream most of the time until something breaks.
by cperciva | 2025-12-30 00:19:36+00:00
focus all tax collection to top 1%

If you do that in the USA, you're ignoring 79% of income. The top 1% earn a lot more than average but they're still small in number, and their collective income is only 21% of the total.

(And the USA is uncommonly high as regards income share received by the top 1%; Canada is at 11.5% and is fairly typical.)
by theno0b | 2025-12-30 00:19:39+00:00
How do you tell moonshots from bubbles? What categories are especially bubbly? Is there some practical index? Most VCs thought Manus at $500m was a bubble, and yet it exited at several billion.

This is an insightful piece digging into how to pick out the not-stupid bets in a time that reads as stagflation to some, commoditizing frontier research to others.
by kmeisthax | 2025-12-30 00:19:39+00:00
If I am running a business in the US and I want to set up shop in Canada or France, I have to register a second business in that country and have my US headquarters own it. What I want is for ownership of the foreign subsidiary to directly mirror the primary company's, and the most efficient way to do it is to just have the US company own the foreign one.

If companies can't own companies, then instead I have to directly transfer ownership over the subsidiary to the shareholders of the primary company. That means they can sell their shares of the foreign subsidiary independently of the headquarters, and the two companies' ownership will diverge over time. I am effectively forced to IPO the foreign subsidiary at the moment of their creation.

You can't assign ownership to the current CEO or board members, because that creates a conflict of interest. They'd be able to take a US company they manage and turn it into a foreign subsidiary they own.

This would also make joint ventures, mergers, and acquisitions far more difficult and complicated, if not impossible.
by Khaine | 2025-12-30 00:19:41+00:00
Thats just what the internet of the mid to late 90s was like. People rarely used their real name, there were hundreds of forums, some private. You could have different nicks on them.

Nobody knew you were a dog on the internet[1] until the rise of Facebook and linking your real identity with an online identity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
by AndyNemmity | 2025-12-30 00:19:44+00:00
There is certainly a level where at any time you could be building some abstraction that is no longer required in a month, or 3.

I feel that way too. I have a lot of these things.

But the reality is, it doesn't really happen that often in my actual experience. Everyone is very slow as a whole to understand what these things mean, so far you get quite a bit of time just with an improved, customized system of your own.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-12-30 00:20:27+00:00
> and it can maintain a test suite that shows everything works correctly

Are you able to efficiently verify that the test suite is testing what it should be testing? (I would not count "manually reviewing all the test code" as efficient if you have a similar amount of test code to actual code.)

Sometimes a change to the code under test means that a (perhaps unavoidably brittle) test needs to be changed. In this case, the LLM should change the test to match the behaviour of the code under test. Other times, a change to the code under test represents a bug that a failing test should catch -- in this case, the LLM should fix the code under test, and leave the test unchanged. How do you have confidence that the LLM chooses the right path in each case?
by rgoulter | 2025-12-30 00:20:39+00:00
I put emphasis on splitting spacebar into thumb keys just because the large spacebar is so ubiquitous. -- There's practically no downside to splitting the large spacebar into 6x keys.

I think it's good if layout enthusiasts want to use as few as keys as each finds practical. -- I think a good keyboard will support layouts that bring the full functionality of the keyboards to within the hands on home row for two-handed typing (as well as support mouse + keyboard functionality).

But .. I think that the keyboard is physically better off with fewer keys is just fashion amongst enthusiasts.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-12-30 00:21:32+00:00
AI employees are not employees. They are tools, not people.

The fallacy here is applying a closed world assumption where the amount of code doesn't change but more of it is written by AIs and sold for the same dollar amount. And therefore less taxes get paid. That assumption is wrong; and so are the conclusions and sand castles built on it.

The reality is that whenever we give programmers better tools, we get more programmers, not less. And then they start creating even more software than before. Also the value of software drops but the amount spent on software grows. That's because economies grow when you drop the cost of something and create more demand for that stuff. In this case software. Where in the past some companies might not have bothered with an app or a website or automation, many now do have some of that stuff. And now they get to raise the ambition level and maybe see if they can automate some more of their internal processes.

Most companies won't do that themselves. They'll pay others to do this for them. And those people and companies will compete with each other on who does the best job most cheaply for a given return on investment. Which is nothing new. The winners will likely be leaning heavily on AI tools to earn handsomely for solutions that deliver some kind of value. They'll want better/smarter apps, deeper integrations with stuff, more automation, a sprinkling of AI, and whatever else makes their companies run better and earn more money.

AI tools themselves are already a commodity and just a means to an end. Anyone can use them. But only some know how to use them well. The skill is in understanding how to use them, what to fix, where to apply them, etc. Those wielding them best will line up more happy customers and revenue. And then they pay their taxes. Over the value they created.

They here being companies that increase their profits, software companies that charge for helping them do that, people employed by those companies, and AI infrastructure and other suppliers that are part of the solution here. Economies grow over time. VAT, profit tax, income tax, etc.

There's a lot of work that will need to happen over the next few decades to pull a lot of this planets industries out of last century. Anyone that believes it's all going to be AIs doing that by themselves more or less unprompted is dreaming. This is going to be a lot of work that will involve a lot of investment for potentially very big returns on investment. A lot of that work wasn't happening because it was too hard or expensive. It just got cheaper, so more of it will start happening now. There's plenty left to do.
by mikepurvis | 2025-12-30 00:22:08+00:00
I just set up a little cube server with a Mini-ITX board I had lying around. Overall I'm very happy with it, but right now it's basically just Unraid with the built-in containers running for Deluge, Jellyfin, and the Crafty minecraft server.

I'd love for it to also be a backup of my whole Google Photos account (eg https://github.com/JakeWharton/docker-gphotos-sync) but honestly I can't imagine trying to maintain an app on there that would actually be the first class storage/sync/presentation layer for my family.