MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by threatofrain | 2025-12-07 02:00:54+00:00
Bad actors, especially state actors, will have no problem getting this data.

Everything that costs will cost to the degree that it costs. Putting the chocolate milk on the top shelf is enough to encourage children to buy less chocolate milk. The data you're talking about? The place I work at is the one doing the hard boots on the ground labor for aerial data, and from that perspective nothing is easy or free.

One can make great arguments about why people should have access to data notwithstanding all risks, but surely not that security by obscurity is mere illusion.
by blurker | 2025-12-07 02:01:01+00:00
That sounds amazing. I aspire to get a setup like yours. I am on a Pixel with the stock OS and I can't stand the way Google is pushing AI into everything on my phone.

I haven't switched it to Graphene OS yet because I read that there are issues with NFC and a few other things. I assume this new phone won't have those problems so I think that will be my catalyst to do a big overhaul.
by tptacek | 2025-12-07 02:01:10+00:00
You don't know anything about me or about Oak Park. We killed our Flock contract. I did a good bit of the policy lifting to make that happen, including co-writing our initial pilot ALPR police General Order to lock them down and set up the transparency reporting that enabled us to make the case for killing them. But, keep going, I'm interested in what else you can confidently state about my work.
by devmor | 2025-12-07 02:03:04+00:00
The ultimate conclusion seems to be one that leaves it to personal responsibility - the user of the LLM is responsible for ensuring the LLM has done its job correctly. While this is the ethical conclusion to me, but the “gap” left to personal responsibility is so large that it makes me question how useful everything else in this document really is.

I don’t think it is easy to create a concise set of rules to apply in this gap for something as general as LLM use, but I do think such a ruleset is noticeably absent here.
by john01dav | 2025-12-07 02:03:11+00:00
He speaks of trust and LLMs breaking that trust. Is this not what you mean, but by another name?

> First, to those who can recognize an LLM’s reveals (an expanding demographic!), it’s just embarrassing — it’s as if the writer is walking around with their intellectual fly open. But there are deeper problems: LLM-generated writing undermines the authenticity of not just one’s writing but of the thinking behind it as well. If the prose is automatically generated, might the ideas be too? The reader can’t be sure — and increasingly, the hallmarks of LLM generation cause readers to turn off (or worse).

> Specifically, we must be careful to not use LLMs in such a way as to undermine the trust that we have in one another

> our writing is an important vessel for building trust — and that trust can be quickly eroded if we are not speaking with our own voice
by rgoulter | 2025-12-07 02:03:48+00:00
What do you find confusing about the document encouraging use of LLMs?

The document includes statements like "LLMs are superlative at reading comprehension", "LLMs can be excellent editors", "LLMs are amazingly good at writing code".

The caveats are really useful: if you've anchored your expectations on "these tools are amazing", the caveats bring you closer to what they've observed.

Or, if you're anchored on "the tools aren't to be used", the caveats give credibility to the document's suggestions of the LLMs are useful for.
by accrual | 2025-12-07 02:05:02+00:00
> Customers who confirm their device is affected "should immediately discontinue use and dispose of it," Abbott said.

I imagine such devices have firmware that can't be easily updated. Bummer to throw away hardware unless it's a hardware bug.

Surprising, though. I imagine the software integration for such a device should be quite strict, I wonder what actually happened (a missed code review, faulty logic, etc.).
by notahacker | 2025-12-07 02:05:41+00:00
Because ESCAPADE is a mission to Mars which will orbit Mars and send back data from Mars and the dummy payload released by the Falcon Heavy test launch as a fun little meme which orbits the sun millions of miles from Mars isn't (It'd be easier to claim the SpaceX-launched deep space missions getting Mars gravity assists as Mars missions, at least those missions have actual success criteria related to Mars proximity and might take some photos on the way past).

A Mars mission is more of a Mars mission than launching something which isn't on a mission and doesn't go to Mars isn't very difficult to understand, unless you're actively trying not to. I'd already pointed out that the choice of launch vehicle is largely irrelevant to ESCAPADE's success; no shit they've got their own propulsion. The roadster would have needed it (and a suitable launch window or funky itinerary) to actually get to Mars too. I don't think it's crazy that despite having the engineers and cash to have got to Mars already SpaceX are being beaten by a payload built by one of their newspace contemporaries and launched by another, but a certain SpaceX chap does keep insisting that Mars is the all important destination.
by chiph | 2025-12-07 02:07:13+00:00
I absolutely loved my Moto X with the walnut back. I switched to an iPhone when it stopped getting security patches.

It was built back when Google owned Motorola, before they sold off everything but the patent suite. And was intended to be their flagship phone - which the Pixel later became. Looking at the GrapheneOS FAQ, it doesn't look like I have a prayer of installing it on such an old device as it doesn't have the needed security hardware. Is there a lightweight Android install available?
by jhhh | 2025-12-07 02:07:14+00:00
I've had the same thought about 'written' text with an LLM. If you didn't spend time writing it don't expect me to read it. I'm glad he seems to be taking a hard stance on that saying they won't use LLMs to write non-code artifacts. This principle extends to writing code as well to some degree. You shouldn't expect other people to peer review 'your' code which was simply generated because, again, you spent no time making it. You have to be the first reviewer. Whether these cultural norms are held firmly remains to be seen (I don't work there), but I think they represent thoughtful application of emerging technologies.
by john01dav | 2025-12-07 02:09:03+00:00
> Wherever LLM-generated code is used, it becomes the responsibility of the engineer. As part of this process of taking responsibility, self-review becomes essential: LLM-generated code should not be reviewed by others if the responsible engineer has not themselves reviewed it. Moreover, once in the loop of peer review, generation should more or less be removed: if code review comments are addressed by wholesale re-generation, iterative review becomes impossible.

My general procedure for using an LLM to write code, which is in the spirit of what is advocated here, is:

1) First, feed in the existing relevant code into an LLM. This is usually just a few source files in a larger project

2) Describe what I want to do, either giving an architecture or letting the LLM generate one. I tell it to not write code at this point.

3) Let it speak about the plan, and make sure that I like it. I will converse to address any deficiencies that I see, and I almost always do.

4) I then tell it to generate the code

5) I skim & test the code to see if it's generally correct, and have it make corrections as needed

6) Closely read the entire generated artifact at this point, and make manual corrections (occasionally automatic corrections like "replace all C style casts with the appropriate C++ style casts" then a review of the diff)

The hardest part for me is #6, where I feel a strong emotional bias towards not doing it, since I am not yet aware of any errors compelling such action.

This allows me to operate at a higher level of abstraction (architecture) and remove the drudgery of turning an architectural idea into written, precise, code. But, when doing so, you are abandoning those details to a non-deterministic system. This is different from, for example, using a compiler or higher level VM language. With these other tools, you can understand how they work and rapidly have a good idea of what you're going to get, and you have robust assurances. Understanding LLMs helps, but thus not to the same degree.
by 000ooo000 | 2025-12-07 02:09:29+00:00
>Wherever LLM-generated code is used, it becomes the responsibility of the engineer. As part of this process of taking responsibility, self-review becomes essential: LLM-generated code should not be reviewed by others if the responsible engineer has not themselves reviewed it

By this own article's standards, now there are 2 authors who don't understand what they've produced.
by tolerance | 2025-12-07 02:10:21+00:00
I made the mistake of first reading this as a document intended for all in spite of it being public.

This is a technical document that is useful in illustrating how the guy who gave a talk once that I didn’t understand but was captivated by and is well-respected in his field intends to guide his company’s use of the technology so that other companies and individual programmers may learn from it too.

I don’t think the objective was to take any outright ethical stance, but to provide guidance about something ostensibly used at an employee’s discretion.
by rgoulter | 2025-12-07 02:10:27+00:00
> LLM-generated writing undermines the authenticity of not just one’s writing but of the thinking behind it as well.

I think this points out a key point.. but I'm not sure the right way to articulate it.

A human-written comment may be worth something, but an LLM-generated is cheap/worthless.

The nicest phrase capturing the thought I saw was: "I'd rather read the prompt".

It's probably just as good to let an LLM generate it again, as it is to publish something written by an LLM.
by kittikitti | 2025-12-07 02:10:30+00:00
Thank you for sharing this article. I find people claiming I have autism for random reasons, mainly because I like to code. It's frustrating and they can concern-troll all they want.

"They haven’t seen any cool TikToks about being schizoid. No one’s offering them quizzes about being schizotypal." I'm eagerly awaiting the Great Meme Reset of 2026 when people will stop using memes as their shared knowledge. I even know a pediatrician who does this to support her anti-vax practice so meme culture has reached frightening levels.

Therapy-speak has become weaponized by people who are not well meaning. Please don't go around diagnosing people. If you say someone is bipolar, a lawyer can use this against them in court. I urge people to identify the sources of their (mis)information and humble themselves before offering diagnostics.
by teleforce | 2025-12-07 02:11:05+00:00
Reading most of the technology articles would have you to believe that dark ages really existed and for more than thousands years, i.e from Greece to Renaissance time there is no marine technology advancement between them.

The truth of the matter is that the Arabic and muslim are the master of the sea during this so called "dark ages" time, and many advancement has been made from navigation gear of the Arabic astrolobe to the Idrisi map.

In tide prediction Al-Kindi for example, has notable work on tides in his seminal book Treatise on the Efficient Cause of the Flow and Ebb back in 9th CE [1],[2].

[1]al-Kindi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi

[2] Al-Kindi:

https://muslimheritage.com/al-kindi/
by ahepp | 2025-12-07 02:12:09+00:00
It seems like this would be a really interesting field to research. Does AI assisted coding result in fewer bugs, or more bugs, vs an unassisted human?

I've been thinking about this as I do AoC with Copilot enabled. It's been nice for those "hmm how do I do that in $LANGUAGE again?" moments, but it's also wrote some nice looking snippets that don't do quite what I want it to. And many cases of "hmmm... that would work, but it would read the entire file twice for no reason".

My guess, however, is that it's a net gain for quality and productivity. Humans make bugs too and there need to be processes in place to discover and remediate those regardless.
by 1659447091 | 2025-12-07 02:12:10+00:00
> Sounds like AI was utterly useless to everyone involved

Maybe.

Imo, I think the advances in AI and the hype toward generated everything will actually be the current societies digitally-obsessed course-correction back to having a greater emphases on things like theater, live music, conversing with people in-person or even strangers (the horror, I know) simply to connect/consume more meaningfully. It'll level out integrating both instead of being so digitally loop-sided as humans adapt to enjoy both.*

To me, this shows a need for more local journalism that has been decimated by the digital world. By journalism, I mean it in a more traditional sense, not bloggers and podcast (no shade some follow principled, journalistic integrity -- as some national "traditional" one don't). Local journalism is usually held to account by the community, and even though the worldwide BBC site has this story, it was the local reporters they had that were able to verify. If these AI stories/events accelerate a return to local reporting with a worldwide audience, then all the better.

* I try to be a realist, but when I err, it tends to be on the optimist side
by echelon | 2025-12-07 02:14:00+00:00
A lot of online culture laments the modern American life and blames the Boomers for all of our "woes".

The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.

There's a reason everything in America was super sized for so long.

Things have averaged out a bit now, but if you look at the trendline, we're still doing remarkably well. The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.
by rs186 | 2025-12-07 02:14:16+00:00
In the past they made videos available via Udacity, which were removed after Udacity turned their focus to short & easy (which often means superficial) courses for enterprise training instead of "serious" university courses. I guess that was not a viable business.

Of course they did not come with any assignments, just like these courses. Can't blame them, but other universities offer much resources -- for the same topic, you can often find a course offered by another university that provides videos hosted on YouTube, full assignments and labs, even exams. The only thing you are missing is TA/office hours and the course credit. In other words, unless you actually want to earn credits and work towards a degree, I suggest that you skip OMSCS videos unless there is no alternative.
by todayresume | 2025-12-07 02:15:24+00:00
Hi HN,

I built TodayResume because tailoring a resume for each job is slow, repetitive work that most people avoid. The result is a generic resume that does not match the role and gets filtered out by automated systems.

TodayResume analyzes a job description and rewrites your resume to match the requirements. It also gives a match score and feedback so you can see where your experience is strong or weak, and it generates a cover letter aligned with the same role. The goal is to save time while still producing documents that reflect the applicant’s real experience.

Main features:

Resume tailoring based on the job description you paste

Match score with specific suggestions for improving fit

Keyword checks for ATS systems

Resume and cover letter generated in one pass

Simple interface with two free generations to try the workflow

This started as a personal project to help a few friends who were job searching. It unexpectedly became something people kept asking for, so I turned it into a small product. I would love feedback on what works, what does not, and what is missing for people who apply to a lot of roles.

If anyone wants to try it, the site is here: todayresume.com

Happy to answer questions about how it works or anything related.
by pests | 2025-12-07 02:15:28+00:00
> That junior engineer possibly hasn't programmed without the tantalizing, even desperately tempting option to be assisted by an LLM.

Years ago I had to spend many months building nothing but Models (as in MVC) for a huge data import / ingest the company I worked on was rewriting. It was just messy enough that it couldn't be automated. I almost lost my mind from the dull monotony and started even having attendance issues. I know today that could have been done with an LLM in minutes. Almost crazy how much time I put into that project compared to if I did it today.
by lambdas | 2025-12-07 02:15:48+00:00
90% manned. A lot of money and time goes into getting track access.

And collecting unmanned data is still such a pain. At the moment, you stick calibration gear to a train and hope it gets as much noise free data as it can. All whilst going at least 40mph over the area you want - you’re fighting vibrations, vehicle grease, too much sunlight, not enough sunlight, rain, ballast covering things, equipment not calibrated before going out etc etc.
by _wire_ | 2025-12-07 02:17:31+00:00
Reads like influencer ad hype.

Lacks any quantitative claim of performance, and weasels all the way.

As companies compete within the rapidly expanding bubble and it nears the point of maximum inflation, an increasing frequency of raving use-case testimonials should be expected, because companies know that the survivor distribution will be informed by mindshare in the interval immediately ahead of the pop. So expect the hype to continue to accelerate.

--

Recall Jim Cramer of NBC raving that all signs point to buy the day before the 2008 derivatives bubble popped.

(Since then he's retconned himself as having sounded the alarm on 2008)
by austin-cheney | 2025-12-07 02:19:43+00:00
That might be the intent but in practice the opposite has come true. The more narrow definition is more exclusive, which means fewer child with autism can be diagnosed as autistic. For example criteria under the description of Asperger’s and PDA are excluded so those children cannot be diagnosed as autistic and therefore those children cannot receive additional support. That is a massive handicap that requires main streaming children that cannot function or learn in a normal classroom.
by daemonologist | 2025-12-07 02:20:44+00:00
I'm holding out a little bit of hope that Valve puts out a laptop - the Steam Deck has notably good power management for a linux device of its class (and I've even heard of people using them as laptop replacements), though the idle power is still higher than a Macbook. They're going to have made a desktop, gaming handheld, and VR device; why not one more?
by seabrookmx | 2025-12-07 02:20:59+00:00
Why does this read like a personal attack? Do you have anything in my comment to refute?

I didn't even use the word "modern."

I actually agree the traditional cloud providers have lots of issues and aren't always the right choice, but the fact remains that offerings from Red Hat and the like are far more popular with older larger corporations than startups or "household name" tech companies like X, Netflix, etc.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-12-07 02:22:18+00:00
Understanding intent is understanding interest and that's not philosophy. If it's not about interest, it's psychiatry - not philosophy either.

Besides, only a lesser part of law is about intent, the major part is about punishing and avoiding harm, finding the true facts and applying the written law to them.

Down-voting can't change the truth, we've been led by the nose for far too long.
by mcqueenjordan | 2025-12-07 02:22:22+00:00
As usual with Oxide's RFDs, I found myself vigorously head-nodding while reading. Somewhat rarely, I found a part that I found myself disagreeing with:

> Unlike prose, however (which really should be handed in a polished form to an LLM to maximize the LLM’s efficacy), LLMs can be quite effective writing code de novo.

Don't the same arguments against using LLMs to write one's prose also apply to code? Was this structure of the code and ideas within the engineers'? Or was it from the LLM? And so on.

Before I'm misunderstood as a LLM minimalist, I want to say that I think they're incredibly good at solving for the blank page syndrome -- just getting a starting point on the page is useful. But I think that the code you actually want to ship is so far from what LLMs write, that I think of it more as a crutch for blank page syndrome than "they're good at writing code de novo".

I'm open to being wrong and want to hear any discussion on the matter. My worry is that this is another one of the "illusion of progress" traps, similar to the one that currently fools people with the prose side of things.
by nine_k | 2025-12-07 02:24:11+00:00
> what programming language was best for their situation, which was removing the Rust language and using something else

This is correct, but I'd say that the key was removing Rust and not using something else. Fewer moving parts, fewer JS runtime boundaries to cross, no need to make certain that the GC won't interfere, etc.

Also, basically any rewrite is a chance to drop entrenched decisions that proved to be not as great. Rewriting a large enough part of Prisma likely allowed to address quite a few pieces of tech debt which were not comfortable to address in small incremental changes. Consider "Prisma requires ~98% fewer types to evaluate a schema. Prisma requires ~45% fewer types for query evaluation.": this mush have required quite a bit of rework of the whole thing. Removing Rust in the process was likely almost a footnote.
by bccdee | 2025-12-07 02:24:14+00:00
To be fair, LLMs usually use em-dashes correctly, whereas I think this document misuses them more often than not. For example:

> This can be extraordinarily powerful for summarizing documents — or of answering more specific questions of a large document like a datasheet or specification.

That dash shouldn't be there. That's not a parenthetical clause, that's an element in a list separated by "or." You can just remove the dash and the sentence becomes more correct.
by DrewADesign | 2025-12-07 02:24:15+00:00
I think people misunderstand this quote. Cleverness in this context is referring to complexity, and generally stems from falling in love with some complex mechanism you dream up to solve a problem rather than challenging yourself to create something simpler and easier to maintain. Bolting together bits of LLM-created code is is far more likely to be “clever” rather than good.
by wat10000 | 2025-12-07 02:24:41+00:00
If the choice of launch vehicle is largely irrelevant then how does this make any sense? We’re talking about the launch companies. The claim was “Blue Origin has beat SpaceX to Mars.” But they did no such thing. BO launched a payload into Earth orbit. They have nothing to do with where it goes from there. SpaceX didn’t get to Mars either but at least they were the ones who actually got the Roadster into heliocentric orbit.
by kace91 | 2025-12-07 02:25:30+00:00
The guide is generally very well thought, but I see an issue in this part:

It sets the rule that things must be actually read when there’s a social expectation (code interviews for example) but otherwise… remarks that use of LLMs to assist comprehension has little downside.

I find two problems with this:

- there is incoherence there. If LLMs are flawless in reading and summarization, there is no difference with reading the original. And if they aren’t flawless, then that flaw also extends to non social stuff.

- in practice, I haven’t found LLMs so good as reading assistants. I’ve send them to check a linked doc and they’ve just read the index and inferred the context, for example. Just yesterday I asked for a comparison of three technical books on a similar topic, and it wrongly guessed the third one rather than follow the three links.

There is a significant risk in placing a translation layer between content and reader.