MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by xp84 | 2025-12-12 01:11:45+00:00
There are DOZENS OF US!

Picture me in 2007. "The iPhone. Psh. Like I'm going to switch to Cingular and pay thirty dollars for a data plan!" (Keep in mind that's $47 in today's dollars!)

I would use my N800 and Bluetooth-tether to my Verizon flip phone when on the go. It was mildly useful for things like LiveJournal and I'm sure the Twitter of that time would have worked on whatever browser Maemo had. But I had to admit by 2008 that I wanted a smartphone instead of this second device with a stylus.

In those days though, browsing the web as though you were on a desktop was thought to be the goal to aspire to. Even the iPhone launched with the default behavior in Safari being showing whole desktop webpages, and you zoomed in to the parts you wanted to use. It took a year or two for people to figure out 'responsive' and within 4 years most sites were starting to be designed for small portrait screens. At that point the landscape N800 style was at a disadvantage since the mobile sites being designed to be a little leaner, were the wrong layout, but the desktop sites were pretty heavy for a mobile device to handle. And as "apps" ate the world that probably put the final nail on our little N-series.
by avidiax | 2025-12-12 01:12:21+00:00
If the DNS server is actually local like it's supposed to be, it should have just a few ms ping. Quadrupling that just once is no big deal. The user won't even notice, since every OS does lots of background DNS activity before the user even opens an app or browser.

Saying that 2xRTT is a deal-breaker is like saying TCP in general is a deal breaker.

State per client is pretty simple. Use a bloom filter to decide if a client IP is ok for UDP, and slowly set bits to zero at random to force gradual eviction. With a secret nonce per server, the attacker can't engineer collisions except by controlling lots of IPs. For IPv6, just treat blocks above a certain size (e.g. a /48) as equivalent.

And again, this should be the default. Someone that is seriously trying to run an open resolver should have their own fork of the source code and adjust this as they need. The small-time operators that accidentally make their resolvers open won't notice a bloom filter or a slow initial lookup.
by libraryofbabel | 2025-12-12 01:13:08+00:00
I've seen some balls of mud, sure, but I don't think that's the essence of it. It's more like:

1) When I already have a rough picture of the solution to some programming task in my head up front, I do not particularly look forward to actually going and doing it. I've done enough programming that many things feel like a variation on something I've done before. Sometimes the task is its own reward because there is a sufficiently hard and novel puzzle to solve. Mostly it is not and it's just a matter of putting in the time. Having Claude do most of the work is perfect in those cases. I don't think this is particularly anything to do with working on a ball of mud: it applies to most kinds of work on clean well-architected projects as well.

2) I have a restless mind and I just don't find doing something that interesting anymore once I have more or less mastered it. I'd prefer to be learning some new field (currently, LLMs) rather than spending a lot of time doing something I already know how to do. This is a matter of temperament: there is nothing wrong with being content in doing a job you've mastered. It's just not me.
by irishcoffee | 2025-12-12 01:13:12+00:00
I sincerely never understood the “starving artist” thing. Everyone needs to be able to provide for themselves. The whole starving artist thing always came across (to me) as someone who refused to work because… art?

Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career. Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.

You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.
by rounce | 2025-12-12 01:13:34+00:00
> It happened with Next.js as well

It's the same vulnerabilities because Next uses the vulnerable parts of React.

Your rational is quite poor as I can write an isomorphic web app in C or Rust or Go and run parts in the browser, what then? Look, many of us also strongly dislike JavaScript but generally that distaste is based on its actual shortcomings and failures, you don't have to invent new ones plenty already exist.
by ProllyInfamous | 2025-12-12 01:15:09+00:00
Thanks for the link; I liked the author's introduction more than the rest of the book, and wouldn't recommend it to any casual reader, nor most people.

Instead, read Shusterman's Scythe trilogy (~2016-2020~); each author embraces fiction for different reasons, but I feel Shusterman's storytelling is rapidly becoming truth, whether his soothsaying was intentional (or not).

----

Welcome to /hn/
by p1necone | 2025-12-12 01:15:13+00:00
I think the writers classification of this being a Chinese vs English distinction is a bit presumptuous - the portion of the USA OP is familiar with maybe, but I'll jump on the bandwagon to say this kind of negated negative language is very very common in New Zealand.

Not bad, not wrong, no problem etc etc are all very common, and we have the following too:

Nah yeah = yes

Yeah nah = no

Yeah nah yeah = yes

Nah yeah nah = no

...extend outward to your hearts desire

(yes people commonly say all of the above)
by bgar | 2025-12-12 01:15:18+00:00
>http-request-validator is infinitely superior to “zephyr”

Is it though? How are you going to differentiate between 10 different variations of http-request-validator repos on GitHub? I think both have their downsides, but making the name super generic sounding is arguably worse. What I don't like about names like zephyr is that they're purely marketing-driven; people end up picking a zephyr over a http-request-validator purely because the name is sounds "cool" to them, even though http-request-validator might actually be the better library. And don't even get me started on people naming their projects random Japanese words.. it's like the equivalent of nicknames that Thai people use, which are just random English words like Ice Cream or Thank You.

Maybe the happy medium is, like you said, names that contain a hint as to what they do, like Actix (actor model). But TBH you kind of still have to look it up to know what it does, there's no way you're just going to infer that. Maybe later on it helps you remember what it was for though.
by FloorEgg | 2025-12-12 01:15:29+00:00
Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want.

Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:

- they see no value in x

- they see small enough value in x that they don't care

- they see negative value

So much time and energy is wasted on misunderstandings that stem from this ambiguity.

It ruins products, is loses deals, it screws up projections, it confuses executives, etc.

It gets in the way of accurately empathizing with and understanding each other.

Because "I unwant x" means something extremely different than "I don't want x". Unwant implies some other value that x is getting in the way of. Understanding other peoples' values is what enables accurate empathy for them. Accurately empathizing with customers is what enables great products and predictable sales.
by abhshkdz | 2025-12-12 01:16:46+00:00
> Tried it for a real estate search, and to my surprise - it’s better than the “alerts” at major real estate marketplaces. It was particularly useful to me since I don’t speak the language in the area I’m trying to buy.

That's awesome. Glad to hear!

> Just wondering what other use cases there are…

Check out the examples below the fold here: https://yutori.com
by keeda | 2025-12-12 01:16:48+00:00
Hilarious! Kinda reinforces the idea that LLMs are like junior engineers with infinite energy.

But just telling an AI it's a principal engineer does not make it a principal engineer. Firstly, that is such a broad, vaguely defined term, and secondly, typically that level of engineering involves dealing with organizational and industry issues rather than just technical ones.

And so absent a clear definition, it will settle on the lowest common denominator of code quality, which would be test coverage -- likely because that is the most common topic in its training data -- and extrapolate from that.

The other thing is, of course, the RL'd sycophancy which compels it to do something, anything, to obey the prompt. I wonder what would happen if tweaked the prompt just a little bit to say something like "Use your best judgement and feel free to change nothing."
by alechewitt | 2025-12-12 01:17:21+00:00
Nice work on these benchmarks Simon. I’ve followed your blog closely since your great talk at the AI Engineers World Fair, and I want to say thank you for all the high quality content you share for free. It’s become my primary source for keeping up to date.

I’ve been working on a few benchmarks to test how well LLMs can recreate interfaces from screenshots. (https://github.com/alechewitt/llm-ui-challenge). From my basic tests, it seems GPT-5.2 is slightly better at these UI recreations. For example, in the MS Word replica, it implemented the undo/redo buttons as well as the bold/italic formatting that GPT-5.1 handled, and it generally seemed a bit closer to the original screenshot (https://alechewitt.github.io/llm-ui-challenge/outputs/micros...).

In the VS Code test, it also added the tabs that weren’t visible in the screenshot! (https://alechewitt.github.io/llm-ui-challenge/outputs/vs_cod...).
by scrubs | 2025-12-12 01:17:57+00:00
I second these points. Risk has moved private equity post 2008.

Here's my question: what in the hell do C-board people including CFOs do besides a sales hussle? I guess it's shareholder money not their personal butt on the line.

People love to invest in Berkshire Hathaway stock and we know why: they don't do stupid.
by moron4hire | 2025-12-12 01:19:00+00:00
Most of it is not. Most of the data necessary to support reflection should be available to the runtime or else it wouldn't be able to operate. The runtime is parsing the syntax of the function, it should be able to tell if all exit conditions have a return of any kind. It should be able to tell me at least the names of the parameters. It should know if a function is bound to a "this", or of it's a constructor. It just doesn't give any way to tell me.
by acemarke | 2025-12-12 01:19:17+00:00
Like I said above and in the post: it was an attempt to generalize the data fetching patterns developed inside of Meta and make them available to all React devs.

If you watch the various talks and articles done by the React team for the last 8 years, the general themes are around trying to improve page loading and data fetching experience.

Former React team member Dan Abramov did a whole series of posts earlier this year with differently-focused explanations of how to grok RSCs: "customizable Backend for Frontend", "avoiding unnecessary roundtrips", etc:

- https://overreacted.io

Conceptually, the one-liner Dan came up with that I liked is "extending React's component model to the server". It's still parent components passing props to child components, "just" spread across multiple computers.
by bitwize | 2025-12-12 01:19:43+00:00
No, but Brazil can (and did) exercise strict import controls over what kind of electronics can get into the country. For the longest time the only game consoles you could legitimately get in Brazil came from Sega through special arrangement with Brazilian manufacturer TecToy—in particular, the Master System and Mega Drive. When the market finally did open up, import consoles were subject to stiff tariffs. Piracy was rampant. That's why the Brazilian gaming market is... weird to this day, and until recently was generally avoided by major manufacturers creating openings for also-rans like the Zeebo.

So while police arresting a kid for having an Ubuntu DVD is unlikely, the Brazilian government twisting the arm of PC manufacturers to prevent the installation of any but approved operating systems on hardware sold to the Brazilian market is highly plausible. Since this already aligns with Microsoft's eventual goals, Microsoft and the PC manufacturers will just hasten the rollout of Palladium 2.0 and nothing will stop it.
by wtallis | 2025-12-12 01:20:05+00:00
What Sony said about their SSD was that it enabled game developers to not duplicate assets like they did for rotating storage. One specific example I recall in Sony's presentation was the assets for a mailbox used in a Spider Man game, with hundreds of copies of that mailbox duplicated on disk because the game divided Manhattan into chunks and tried to have all the assets for each chunk stored more or less contiguously.

If the Helldivers devs were influenced by what Sony said, they must have misinterpreted it and taken away an extremely exaggerated impression of how much on-disk duplication was being used for pre-SSD game development. But Sony did actually say quite a bit of directly relevant stuff on this particular matter when introducing the PS5.
by parpfish | 2025-12-12 01:20:22+00:00
I’ve been told multiple times in multiple jobs that I’m good at naming things, and I love whimsical names. A couple rules I’ve internalized are:

- if it’s hard to name, that’s a good sign that you haven’t clearly delineated use case or set of responsibilities for the thing

- best case for a name is that it’s weird and whimsical on first encounter. Then when somebody tells you the meaning/backstory for the name it reveals some deeper meaning/history that makes it really memorable and cements it in your mind

- the single best tech naming thing I’ve encountered (I didn’t come up with it) was the A/B testing team at Spotify naming themselves “ABBA”
by temp8830 | 2025-12-12 01:21:19+00:00
You say blatant, I say transparent. In terms of scale there is no difference, but the honesty is refreshing.

The only problem is it's causing people to focus on the wrong thing (us vs them, D vs R) instead of the oligarchs who continue to line their pockets (and by the way do not get re-elected every 4 years).
by jmye | 2025-12-12 01:21:59+00:00
> I hope to god this never ever happens.

Then I'll never buy an autonomous vehicle.

I get that most people just want short trips around a major city, but given we, I'm sure it's shocking, don't all live in places like that, or want to spend our time in places like that, it might behoove y'all to solve for other use cases if you want widespread adoption (or at least accept that it's ok to solve for those use cases).

Or, I guess, you can hope that everyone will suddenly decide that all they want is to live in modern Kowloon City because "roads are awful" or whatever memetic nonsense is trending on TikTok.
by Zee2 | 2025-12-12 01:22:09+00:00
If you read the release, it explicitly does not include the likenesses of human actors. Only animated and illustrated characters are included. (Although, that does cover animated/illustrated versions of characters that are typically portrayed by human actors...)

This is almost certainly due to the photographic/human likenesses of actors being under an entirely separate license and royalty contract than pure IP from Disney.
by JBlue42 | 2025-12-12 01:23:04+00:00
> Contemporary work culture influenced its creators, so you’re likely seeing a reflection of that when you watch the show.

Many of the writers on the show have only ever worked in show businesses, which is its own mutation of work culture. Not many have actual worked in stereotypical corporate work situations.

Mike Judge (Office Space, Silicon Valley, etc) probably comes closest having started in corporate life and made a transition.
by kcplate | 2025-12-12 01:23:37+00:00
> access to porn isn't new with the internet

“Ease of access” and “easy access to the most depraved shit you can think of that’s out there” is what changed. That is what is wrong and why many people feel we need to find some way to control that access.

The Internet didn’t come along until I was well into adulthood. Think about what porn access looked like in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. As a teen we were “lucky” if by some rare miracle a friend stole their dad’s Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler and stashed it in the woods (couldn’t risk your parents finding it under your mattress) for us dudes to learn the finer points of female anatomy. In a week it would be washed out from the elements with nary a nipple to be seen. Those magazines (even hustler) was soft compared to what a few clicks can find today. Basically you got degrees of nudity back then, but we appreciated it.

Hardcore video was very rare to see as a horny teen kid in the ‘80s. Most porn movies was still pretty well confined to theaters, but advent of VHS meant (again by sheer luck) you had to have a friend whose parents happened to be in to it, who had rented or bought a video, it was in the house and accessible, all the adults had to be gone from the house so you could hurry up and watch a few minutes on the family’s one TV with a VCR. You needed to build in viewing time along with rewind time to hide your tracks.

Now…parents just leave the room for a few minutes and a willing kid with a couple of clicks could be watching something far beyond the most hardcore thing I saw as a teen.
by gsf_emergency_6 | 2025-12-12 01:24:47+00:00
Best examples of litotes can be found in social media, Chinese or English or any language

My guess is that "bu chuo" _was_ a litotes (or originated as one) but the ironic component evaporated with familiarity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes#Chinese

The literal English translation still seems to be a litotes
by richardfeynman | 2025-12-12 01:24:52+00:00
So you weren't able to propose a solution that would have led to less collateral damage because no such solution exists. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this knows it.

Instead of answering directly you make a comment about deflection, and insist an obvious falsehood (the attack injured thousands of Lebanese civilians) is all you care to believe. On this, we agree. It's all you care to believe, the evidence be damned!
by blindhippo | 2025-12-12 01:25:56+00:00
Thing is, context management is NOT obvious to most users of these tools. I use agentic coding tools on a daily basis now and still struggle with keeping context focused and useful, usually relying on patterns such as memory banks and task tracking documents to try to keep a log of things as I pop in and out of different agent contexts. Yet still, one false move and I've blown the window leading to a "compression" which is utterly useless.

The tools need to figure out how to manage context for us. This isn't something we have to deal with when working with other humans - we reliably trust that other humans (for the most part) retain what they are told. Agentic use now is like training a team mate to do one thing, then taking it out back to shoot it in the head before starting to train another one. It's inefficient and taxing on the user.
by qingcharles | 2025-12-12 01:28:13+00:00
My first Internet phone was the Nokia 9000, which was limited to GSM (9600bps). I built and debugged one of the first major music streaming services on that connection because I was working remote and my DSL got cut off. I had to add a 2Kbps stream option to the production servers for myself just so I could test it.
by qeternity | 2025-12-12 01:28:36+00:00
Quantization is not some magical dial you can just turn. In practice you basically have 3 choices: fp16, fp8 and fp4.

Also thinking time means more tokens which costs more especially at the API level where you are paying per token and would be trivially observable.

There is basically no evidence that either of these are occurring in the way you suggest (boosting up and down).
by hogehoge51 | 2025-12-12 01:28:46+00:00
Most traditional OEMs in the automotive industry are integrators. They write a specification, and a Tier 1 supplier provides a black box matching that spec. (Tier 1 in turn provides a spec to its suppliers and integrates their parts)

This has several consequences - Tier 1 suppliers are waiting on input/approval from OEM before proceeding with projects - Tier 1 suppliers don't necessarily have the capital to do work "at risk", even if they could build the part without approval/specifications. (TBH - some do) - Each layer of the supply chain lacks context on the whole project and product line and cannot achieve efficiencies outside of the scope of its contract.

These haven't really been a problem for mechanical parts and E/E parts that have well-defined functions and interfaces and have a lot of re-use from previous generations. It works really well with Kaizen (incremental innovation).

To outsource it, a traditional OEM would need to completely specify the behaviour of said self-driving system, baseline the specification, put out the requests for quotation, etc. Tier 1 then needs to analyse the spec, estimate it, break it down in to sub work packages, work with its suppliers, etc. From an optimisation point of view, this is really inefficient partitioning of the problem space. For greenfields development, an emergent specification via experimentation may be better - but that won't fit in traditional V-model sub-contract OEMs/Tier 1s use.

That flow doesn't need to be followed; the suppliers could raise/allocate capital and build the self-driving stack "at risk" - and this seems to be done (Tier IV, Waymo, etc). But as it's new technology, I assume Rivian think they can do better by themselves and can get the capital for the development as part of an integrated solution while they are smaller it might seem they should not waste limited capitial that way - but integration will save a lot of inefficiency in sharing specifications across boundaries, full system integration and deriving emergent specification via experimentation rather than some MBSE folly.