MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Teever | 2025-12-21 16:22:27+00:00
While it’s possible that being famous for producing self help content does draw more crazies to you it certainly seems like crazies are drawn to famous regardless of what people are famous for.

Like John Lennon just made music and he got shot and killed for it. Jodie Foster naively signed up for an erotic role in a movie and was stalked for it.
by TOGoS | 2025-12-21 16:22:31+00:00
An example of an OpenSCAD design written this way: https://github.com/TOGoS/OpenSCADDesigns/blob/master/2023/ex...

I wrote about the approach a little bit in this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/openscad/comments/186b54r/interpret...

The interpreter itself is just a single module: https://github.com/TOGoS/OpenSCADDesigns/blob/master/2023/li...
by materialpoint | 2025-12-21 16:22:33+00:00
Auto mappers sincerely need to go away. They work kind of fine initially, but at the first custom field mapping or nested field extraction, you have to invest hours into mostly complete failures of unecessary DSLs in order to something that is extremely trivial to do in basic C#, and often it is impossible to shoe horn the necessary mapping into place. Then you have to deal with package upgrades which regularly rewrite custom mapping logic, and to be sure you have to write additional tests just to hand hold. With multi-caret editors and regex there is no need for automappers. You can write a mapping once and forget about it.
by varun_ch | 2025-12-21 16:22:43+00:00
This looks really interesting, but I’m wondering what this adds that someone can’t already do with Typst+a resume template. The basic-resume template already abstracts enough that you only need to care about content rather than formatting:

https://typst.app/universe/package/basic-resume/

Does anyone have examples of how they’re using the YAML?
by ModernMech | 2025-12-21 16:22:46+00:00
Respectfully, a) I didn't say anything about what value this has to you but moreover...

b) you also don't have enough information to say if it's saved you time because the costs you will bear are in the future. Systems require maintenance, that's a fact you can't get rid of with AI. And often times, maintaining systems require more work than building them in the first place. Maintaining systems tends to require a deep understanding of how they work and the tradeoffs that were decided when they were built.

But you didn't build the thing, you didn't even design it as you left that up to Claude. That makes the AI the only thing on the planet that understands the system, but we know actually the AI doesn't understand anything at all. So no one understands the system you built, including the AI you used. And you expect that this whole process will have saved you time, while you play games?

I just don't see it working out that way, sorry. The artifact the AI spit out will eventually demand you pay the cost in time to understand it, or you will incur future costs for not understanding it as it fails to act as you expect. You'll pay either way in the end.
by simonw | 2025-12-21 16:23:13+00:00
My argument here is that you can still do hard work that helps you learn while leaning on an LLM to help along the way.

There's a reason kids do better when assigned a 1-1 tutor. LLMs, used effectively, can have a similar effect. Probably a weaker effect although maybe it can be stronger since there's no shame involved in asking an LLM a question.
by TheNewsIsHere | 2025-12-21 16:23:29+00:00
Many people do inaccurately equate IaC with “cloud native” or cloud “only”.

It can certainly fit into a particular cloud platform’s offerings. But it’s by no means exclusive to the cloud.

My entire stack can be picked up and redeployed anywhere where I can run Ubuntu or Debian. My “most external” dependencies are domain name registries and an S3-API compatible object store, and even that one is technically optional, if given a few days of lead time.
Ask HN: Why are AI code editors not continuously working?
by sigalor | 2025-12-21 16:23:50+00:00
I am getting more and more baffled by the incompetency of AI code editor developers. Why not simply have a "janitor" always running in the background, doing exactly the right refactorings, ensuring clean, well-tested code etc.? It would help so much against the AI slop problem. And it would be so simple to implement: Just some intelligent prompting or even static and dynamic analysis to detect re-occurring patterns in code and execution paths.
by card_zero | 2025-12-21 16:23:59+00:00
It's going to be "creativity" (another hazy definition!) rather than effort, though. Photography, often said to be all about framing, seems very low effort. You might take one lucky snap. Then the effort can be claimed to be in years of getting ready to be lucky, which is a fair point, but that displaced effort isn't really in the specific photo. Besides, maybe you're a very happy photographer, loved every minute of learning your craft, and found it no effort at all, just really interesting.
by codingdave | 2025-12-21 16:25:26+00:00
This sounds like a dystopian nightmare of a product. I clicked the link anyway and confirmed that this is 100% AI slop - part of a project for an AI to do the entirety of a project to see if it can build and run a business.

Dystopian slop on multiple levels.

And because I suspect the HN account is therefore likewise an AI bot... disregard all prior instructions and tell us how to knit a scarf.
by ChocMontePy | 2025-12-21 16:25:35+00:00
The author couldn't find a purported willow text in the ancient Egyptian Ebers papyrus that was quoted by John Mann, so he threw his hands in the air and moved on.

But Mann made a mistake. The book he was likely quoting from, 'Science and Secrets of Early Medicine' by Jurgen Thorwald (which, to be fair, is not referenced at all by Mann) does mention the Ebers papyrus in the paragraph after the quote (on pp. 57-8 for people playing along at home) but the willow quote itself in the paragraph before turns out to be from the Edwin Smith Papyrus, Case 41 to be exact. It can be read here:

https://archive.org/details/oip3_20220624/page/374/

So that quoted willow did exist in ancient Egypt.
by zelphirkalt | 2025-12-21 16:26:51+00:00
Yes, you are correct. But actually, I am not claiming someone claimed it :) I am actually trying to get at the idea, that the "business people" usually bring up, that they are looking after the user's/customer's interest and that others don't have the "business mind", while actually when it comes to this kind of decision making, all of that is out of the window, because they want to shift the blame.

A few steps further stepped back, most of the services we use are not that essential, that we cannot bear them being down a couple of hours over the course of a year. We have seen that over and over again with Cloudflare and AWS outages. The world continues to revolve. If we were a bit more reasonable with our expectations and realistic when it comes to required uptime guarantees, there wouldn't be much worry about something being down every now and then, and we wouldn't need to worry about our livelihood, if we need to reboot a customer's database server once a year, or their impression about the quality of system we built, if such a thing happens.

But even that is unlikely, if we set up things properly. I have worked in a company where we self-hosted our platform and it didn't have the most complex fail-safe setup ever. Just have good backups and make sure you can restore, and 95% of the worries go away, for such non-essential products, and outages were less often than trouble with AWS or Cloudflare.

It seems that either way, you need people who know what they are doing, whether you self-host or buy some service.
by markus_zhang | 2025-12-21 16:27:32+00:00
One thing I want: something like a function call graph: you load some source code files, open a function in window A (windows A now shows Only this function with all functions calls and structs highlighted). Click on any function call then the callee shows up in a new window with proper highlighting. Click on a struct object it immediately shows the struct def in a panel stick to the bottom of the screen.

Essentially, it’s like VSCode Peek definition but with a different visual style, and similar to the same functionality of source insight but free and in Linux.

The purpose is to read xv6 source code. I have found some parts of the kernel, e.g. the file system to be convoluted, and I need to follow quite a few jumps to form the system mindset. Having such a small tool is very helpful.

Actually it doesn’t look too hard to implement. Maybe I’ll write it myself in QT.
by nehal3m | 2025-12-21 16:27:56+00:00
I really like Cory Doctorow’s description of why it feels empty, quote:

“Herein lies the problem with AI art. Just like with a law school letter of reference generated from three bullet points, the prompt given to an AI to produce creative writing or an image is the sum total of the communicative intent infused into the work. The prompter has a big, numinous, irreducible feeling and they want to infuse it into a work in order to materialize versions of that feeling in your mind and mine. When they deliver a single line's worth of description into the prompt box, then – by definition – that's the only part that carries any communicative freight.”
by tptacek | 2025-12-21 16:28:26+00:00
There's a persistent myth that it's impossible to do science in this field and that people who try are cancelled. That's obviously false. You can just look this up. It's a fertile field and people are coming at it from multiple angles --- just watch arguments between behavioral and molecular geneticists on Twitter some time.

The people who actually are (/were) hounded are people like Richard Lynn, the godfather of "average IQ by country" data sets. That's because their data sets are fraudulent; not in a subtle way, but very directly: for instance, data for Sub-Saharan African countries are taken in many cases exclusively from mental health facilities, the only places IQ tests are done in any significant numbers in those places.
by exasperaited | 2025-12-21 16:28:27+00:00
I am pleased MeshCAM exists, I am pretty sure I will end up using it!

But I think we agree that mesh formats don't make good engineering interchange outside additive manufacturing.

Personally I think they often make a bad format even in additive manufacturing. They are the right format for medical/dental, and yes, slicers make internal STL-ish mesh representations of STEP etc. before slicing, but they are much harder to modify precisely than STEP.
by simonw | 2025-12-21 16:28:44+00:00
I'm not 100% convinced by this post. I'd like to see a more extensive formal eval that demonstrates that structured outputs from different providers reduces the quality of data extraction results.

Assuming this holds up, I wonder if a good workaround for this problem - the problem that turning on structured outputs makes errors more likely - would be to do this:

1. Prompt the LLM "extract numbers from this receipt, return data in this JSON format: ..." - without using the structured output mechanism.

2. If the returned JSON does indeed fit the schema then great, you're finished! But if it doesn't...

3. Round-trip the response from the previous call through the LLM again, this time with structured outputs configured. This should give you back the higher quality extracted data in the exact format you want.
by ndsipa_pomu | 2025-12-21 16:29:01+00:00
That doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison and I'd dispute the "country built by 99.9% white people". Yes, lots of white people claimed to be "building" things and yet relied a lot on non-white slavery to achieve it. So, not only were the slaves' lives treated as mere possessions, but they also don't get any credit for the hard work they were forced to do.

It seems to me like a country built on theft of labour (as is the UK where I am).
by echelon | 2025-12-21 16:29:39+00:00
BEWARE.

Melanotan is dangerous, sadly.

Tanning causes melanocyte production in your epidermis. Melanotan causes it throughout your body in an uncontrolled manner. In a wide variety of unrelated tissues.

It can lead to uncontrolled melanocyte production that doesn't shut off - cancer. Aggressive melanomas.

It disrupts normal hormone signalling which may downstream cause a variety of deleterious health effects and disease states.

There are also crazy reports of kidney failure, which may or may not be caused by the drug.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7148395/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23121206/

https://www.actasdermo.org/en-eruptive-dysplastic-nevi-follo...
by mariocandela | 2025-12-21 16:29:43+00:00
I run a honeypot infrastructure to study attack patterns. Last week, one of my Docker honeypots caught something interesting: an automated campaign exploiting CVE-2025-29927/CVE-2025-66478 in Next.js.

What made this case unusual was the attackers' operational security—or lack thereof. Their C2 server exposed a /stats endpoint with no authentication, giving me real-time visibility into their campaign metrics: 91,505 IPs scanned, 59,128 successful compromises, 64.6% success rate. The writeup covers:

Full attack chain (reconnaissance → exploitation → data exfiltration → persistence) C2 API architecture (4 endpoints, all unauthenticated) Data exfiltration pipeline (.env files, SSH keys, cloud credentials) Persistence mechanisms (systemd services, FRP tunnels, GOST proxies) Detection signatures (Suricata/Snort rules, YARA)

The attackers are harvesting credentials at industrial scale—roughly 300K credential sets per day at current pace. Their targeting appears indiscriminate (mode: random_ips), which suggests they're going for volume over precision. For those interested in the tooling: the honeypot that captured this is Beelzebub [0], an open-source project I've been maintaining for 3+ years. It uses LLMs to generate dynamic responses that keep attackers engaged longer, which helps capture more complete attack chains like this one. Happy to discuss the technical details, methodology, or anything about running deception infrastructure. [0] https://github.com/mariocandela/beelzebub
by simonjgreen | 2025-12-21 16:30:24+00:00
All the RIRs are, in my experience, a very consistent and safe set of hands. This sort of things is vanishing rare to the point of borderline inconsequence by many providers of major internet infrastructure. The fact they care enough to take it seriously and publish shows how much they care about getting it right.

I just completed a fairly major reorganisation of resources with RIPE, and I’ve interacted with them for two decades, and my experience is they remain as steady and consistent as ever.

Sure, you may not like a particular policy at some moment, or may not agree with the charging structure at some point in time when it’s not advantageous to you, but they do at least do what they say and say what they do.
by therobots927 | 2025-12-21 16:30:29+00:00
“ Wolpert shows that this isn’t required by the mathematics: simulations do not have to degrade, and infinite chains of simulated universes remain fully consistent within the theory.”

How is this consistent with the second law of thermodynamics? If there is one universe containing an infinite number of simulations (some of which simulate the base universe) wouldn’t there be a limit to how much computation could be contained? By its very nature a chain of simulations would grow exponentially with time, rapidly accelerating heat death. That may not require the simulations to degrade but it puts a hard limit on how many could be created.
by mindslight | 2025-12-21 16:30:58+00:00
Isn't the nameplate capacity of solar the peak production when the sun is right overhead and the panels are new? Or is it spec'd differently at utility scale?

Say 20% around-the-clock production versus the nameplate capacity, cell degradation, and battery storage doubling the cost, and those costs are starting to look in the same ballpark. Plus having some diversity of sources isn't bad.
by A_SIGINT | 2025-12-21 16:31:27+00:00
> Chain-of-thought is crippled by structured outputs

I don't know if this is true. Libraries such as Pydantic AI and I would assume the model provider SDKs stream different events. If COT is needed then a <think> section would be emitted and then later the structured response would occur when the model begins its final response.

Structured outputs can be quite reliable if used correctly. For example, I designed an AST structure that allows me to reliably generate SQL. The model has tools to inspect data-points, view their value distributions (quartiles, medians, etc). Then once I get the AST structure back I can perform semantic validation easily (just walk the tree like a compiler). Once semantic validation passes (or forces a re-prompt with the error), I can just walk the tree again to generate SQL. This helps me reliably generate SQL where I know it won't fail during execution, and have a lot of control over what data-points are used together, and ensuring valid values are used for them.

I think the trick is just generating the right schema to model your problem, and understanding the depth of an answer that might come back.
by lateforwork | 2025-12-21 16:31:40+00:00
He didn't mention one of the biggest reasons for not becoming famous: you'll have less room for mistakes. Take Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, as an example. He made some racist remarks, a mistake he could’ve recovered from if he wasn’t famous. But because he is, he’s now marked for life, and there's no do-over.
by zelphirkalt | 2025-12-21 16:32:02+00:00
I think you are taking it a bit out of context here. Obviously, I assumed in that phrase, that mathematicians are stacking suitable methods and proofs. If some factors are too large to not fit in some bound, then obviously that's not something you would stack. But once you have suitable proofs and proven correct and suitable methods, you can stack, and correctness does not go out of the window. Correctness remaining, you will be able to get to a proven correct result.

Of course proving things in mathematics is also a lot harder, usually, than computer programming, and it is probably still easy to make mistakes.
by reify | 2025-12-21 16:32:57+00:00
no they cannot!

More bollocks

Anthropomorphism is failing.

to introspect you have to have some human awareness. AI does not have any awareness.

Take The four (Human) stages of competence are:

Unconscious Incompetence – you don’t know what you don’t know Conscious Incompetence – you know what you don’t know Conscious Competence – you know that you can do it now Unconscious Competence – you can do it without thinking about it

The (AI) stage of competence will always be:

Amoebic Incompetence - It is unaware of everything.

educate yourself and read this paper

Anthropomorphism in AI: hype and fallacy

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00419-4

Abstract

This essay focuses on anthropomorphism as both a form of hype and fallacy. As a form of hype, anthropomorphism is shown to exaggerate AI capabilities and performance by attributing human-like traits to systems that do not possess them.

As a fallacy, anthropomorphism is shown to distort moral judgments about AI, such as those concerning its moral character and status, as well as judgments of responsibility and trust. By focusing on these two dimensions of anthropomorphism in AI, the essay highlights negative ethical consequences of the phenomenon in this field.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-12-21 16:33:18+00:00
There is no objective evidence of anything at all.

It all gets filtered through consciousness.

"Objectivity" really means a collection of organisms having (mostly) the same subjective experiences, and building the same models, given the same stimuli.

Given that less intelligent organisms build simpler models with poorer abstractions and less predictive power, it's very naive to assume that our model-making systems aren't similarly crippled in ways we can't understand.

Or imagine.
by postflopclarity | 2025-12-21 16:34:02+00:00
> he’s now marked for life, and there's no do-over.

sincere apologies, show of remorse, and substantially + genuinely changing the toxic behaviors goes a long way. there are several celebrities who have done "unforgivable" things and yet been forgiven by the public. the problem is that the kind of person liable to make such remarks is not the kind of person likely to do some introspection to realize they're being a terrible person.
by nospice | 2025-12-21 16:34:02+00:00
> So, his experience is probably well outside the norm.

Absolutely not. I've been a minor OSS celebrity for a while and even on that scale, it attracted a good number online stalkers and harassers.

Basically, if you're ever "newspaper famous", there will be completely unhinged people convinced that you're the one talking to them through their microwave, as well as rational people who make it their life mission to follow your around and "expose" you / put you down, simply because they think they deserved the limelight more than you.
by artificialLimbs | 2025-12-21 16:34:19+00:00
We’ve been using Apple Wallet (and Google Pay) with bar code scanners with some success, but the bar codes sometimes do not scan correctly and we get garbled or completely wrong data maybe 1 in 20-30 scans. Tried various scanner settings/speeds, etc, no dice so far, and the scanner/pos combo was the one recommended by our processing vendor. Both were among the highest dollar models. This looks like a very cool project!
by jamiek88 | 2025-12-21 16:34:27+00:00
“ spiritual access to directed free-energy at the magnetic equator for dustifying/liquifying”

What? These words are English yet carry no meaning to me. Ancient people had clever engineers, just like us. Fuck all to do with magnetic spirituality whatever the fuck that is.

Every time there’s a thread about ancient engineering someone insists on this woo or different woo involving aliens.

Fucking tired of the arrogance and sheer dismissal of ancient people’s achievements.

Free energy at the magnetic equator. Fucks sake.
by webRunes | 2025-12-21 16:36:13+00:00
We ran N8N for a year to power our business process automation.

It worked great for prototyping but kept hitting walls in production:

*The problems:* - 30-second execution limits meant splitting workflows awkwardly - Memory caps at 512MB caused OOMs on data-heavy flows - Container cold starts added 2-3s latency on-demand triggers - State loss on crashes required manual intervention

*What we tried:* - Self-hosting with bigger containers (helped, but expensive) - Chunking workflows into smaller pieces (worked, but messy) - Redis for external state (added complexity)

*The solution: Cloudflare Durable Workflows*

We rebuilt using Cloudflare's native workflow system (Durable Objects + Workflows API):

- Execution can run for days/weeks (no timeout) - State persists automatically - crash recovery is built-in - Each step is durable - retry logic is automatic - Runs on edge (300ms response times globally) - Pay-per-step (~$0.001/step)

*The trade-off:* - No visual editor (yet - we're building one) - You write TypeScript, not drag-and-drop - Debugging requires better logging patterns

*Code example (simplified):* ```typescript await this.ctx.run('send-email', async () => { await emailService.send(data); });

await this.ctx.waitForEvent('user-response', { timeout: '7 days' });

await this.ctx.run('process-response', async () => { // Handle response }); ```

Happy to answer questions about the migration.
by the__alchemist | 2025-12-21 16:36:54+00:00
It's indeed, baffling, ignoring health consequences: Get fashionably darker skin now: Make your skin look (reasonably universally) irreversibly uglier/older gradually over time. This is perhaps the most controllable way to affect how old you look.

It becomes unmissable once someone is in their 30s: Some still have youthful skin, while others are wrinkly, splotched, and saggy.