MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by YmiYugy | 2025-12-03 22:09:54+00:00
I have plenty of complaints about them. The highly addictive gambling mechanics in their games, the extortionate cut afforded them by their dominant market position or the very rough UX in many parts of the Steam client (takes forever to startup, shows pop up ads on startup, is quite the resource hog, the store that is a pretty poorly optimized website and a lot of cruft in the less well trodden areas). But they do make some very nice open source contributions.
by junon | 2025-12-03 22:09:56+00:00
I see now why my first attempt at Rust around this time failed miserably. I had forgotten about a lot of this, and remember trying to make liblua bindings at the time for something I was working on. I wrote Rust off as too cryptic to get anything done with.

I'm really, really glad I've since picked it back up post-1.0.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-12-03 22:09:57+00:00
And the same question I always ask.

Are they profitable (no),

Is Claude Code even running at a marginal profit? (who knows)

Is the marginal profit large enough to pay for continued R&D to stay competitive (no)

Does Claude Code have a sustainable advantage over what Amazon, Microsoft and Google can do in this space using their incumbency advantage and actual profits and using their own infrastructure?
by faizshah | 2025-12-03 22:10:15+00:00
Not to be overly negative but I’m kinda disappointed with this and I have been a JetBrains shill for many years.

I already use this workflow myself, just multiple terminals with Claude on different directories. There’s like 100 of these “Claude with worktrees in parallel” UIs now, would have expected some of the common jetbrains value adds like some deep debugger integration or some fancy test runner view etc. The only one I see called out is Local History and I don’t see any fancy diff or find in files deep integration to diff or search between the agent work trees and I don’t see the jetbrains commit, shelf, etc. git integration that we like.

I do like the cursor-like highlight and add to context thing and the kanban board sort of view of the agent statuses, but this is nothing new. I would have expected at the least that jetbrains would provide some fancier UI that lets you select which directories or scopes should be auto approved for edit or other fancy fine grained auto-approve permissions for the agent.

In summary it looks like just another parallel Claude UI rather than a Jetbrains take on it. It also seems like it’s a separate IDE rather than built on the IntelliJ platform so they probably won’t turn it into a plugin in the future either.
by kizer | 2025-12-03 22:10:28+00:00
In my opinion, the issue in AI is similar to the issue in self driving cars. I think the last “five percent” of functionality for agents etc. will be much, much more difficult to nail down for production use, just like snow weather and strange roads proved to be much more difficult for self-driving car technology rollout. They got to 95% and assumed they were nearing completion but it turned out there was even more work to be done to get to 100%. That’s kind of my take on all the AI hype. It’s going to take a lot more work to get the final five percent done.
by bzmrgonz | 2025-12-03 22:10:57+00:00
My thing is, even ingesting the BOK should have been done in phases, to avoid having all your virtual eggs in one basket or nest at any ONE time. Staggering tokens to these compartments would not have cost them anything at all . I always say, whatever convenience you enjoy yourself, will be highly appreciated by bad actors... WHEN, not if.. they get thru.
by SpaceManNabs | 2025-12-03 22:10:59+00:00
There are certain answers to the above question

1. Lie groups describe local symmetries. Nothing about the global system

2. From a SR point of view, energy in one reference frame does not have to match energy in another reference frame. Just that in each of those reference frames, the energy is conserved.

3. The conservation/constraint in GR is not energy but the divergence of the stress-energy tensor. The "lost" energy of the photo goes into other elements of the tensor.

4. You can get some global conservations when space time exhibits global symmetries. This doesn't apply to an expanding universe. This does apply to non rotating, non charged black holes. Local symmetries still hold.
by LogicFailsMe | 2025-12-03 22:11:05+00:00
The thing about dismissing AI in 2025 is that it's on par with dismissing the wearable computing group at MIT in the 1980s.

But admittedly, if one had tried to productize their stuff in the 1980s it would have been hilarious. So the rewards here are going to go to the people who read the right tea leaves and follow the right path to what's inevitable.

In the short term, a lot of not so smart, people are going to lose a lot of money believing some of the ludicrous short-term claims. But when has that not been the case?

This is not the right time of year to pitch in Seattle. The days are short and the people are cranky. But if they want to keep hating on AI as a technology because of Microsoft and Amazon, let them, and build your AI technology somewhere else. San Francisco thinks the AGI is coming any day now so it all balances out, no?
by jacquesm | 2025-12-03 22:11:11+00:00
> But moving toward one pole moves you away from the other.

My assumption detector twigged at that line. I think this is just replacing the dichotomy with a continuum between two states. But the hype proponents always hope - and in some cases they are right - that those two poles overlap. People make and lose fortunes on placing those bets and you don't necessarily have to be right or wrong in an absolute sense, just long enough that someone else will take over your load and hopefully at a higher valuation.

Engineers are not usually the ones placing the bets, which is why they're trying to stay away from hype driven tech (to them it is neutral with respect to the outcome but in case of a failure they lose their job, so better to work on things that are not hyped, it is simply safer). But as soon as engineers are placing bets they are just as irrational as every other class of investor.
by awesome_dude | 2025-12-03 22:11:44+00:00
I mean, this is the other extreme to the post being replied to (either you think it's useless and walk away, or you're failing at your job for not using it)

I personally use it, I find it helpful at times, but I also find that it gets in my way, so much so it can be a hindrance (think losing a day or so because it's taken a wrong turn and you have to undo everything)

FTR The market is currently punishing people that DO use it (CVs are routinely being dumped at the merest hint of AI being used in its construction/presentation, interviewers dumping anyone that they think is using AI for "help", code reviewers dumping any take home assignments that have even COMMENTS massaged by AI)
by CER10TY | 2025-12-03 22:11:53+00:00
Personally, I'd just use common sense and good judgment. At the end of the day, would you want someone to hand your address, and other private data to OpenAI just like that? Probably not. So don't paste customer data into it if you can avoid it.

On the other hand, minified code is literally published by the company. Everyone can see it and do with it as they please. So handing that over to an AI to un-minify is not really your problem, since you're not the developer working on the tool internally.
by quickthrowman | 2025-12-03 22:12:03+00:00
In the US, you don’t need a neutral for a 240V 50A circuit on a residential single-phase service, there are two line conductors (120V to ground) both connected to a 2-pole single-phase breaker, line-to-line between the two is 240V.

You would need a neutral if it was a 208/120V three-phase service.

Neutrals and grounds are sized per the NEC, neutrals are the same size as the line conductors and equipment grounds are sized off of a table.

#6 conductors and #10 ground is what the NEC calls for.
by dogman144 | 2025-12-03 22:12:18+00:00
Assuming a 101 security program past the quality bar, there are a number of reason why this can still happen at companies.

Summarized as - security is about risk acceptance, not removal. There’s massive business pressure to risk accept AI. Risk acceptance usually means some sort of supplemental control that’s not the ideal but manages. There are very little of these with AI tools however - small vendors, they’re not really service accounts but IMO best way to monitor them probably is that, integrations are easy, eng companies hate devs losing admin of some kind but if you have that random AI on endpoints becomes very likely.

I’m ignoring a lot of nuance but solid sec program blown open by LLM vendors is going to be common, let alone bad sec programs. Many sec teams I think are just waiting for the other shoe to drop for some evidentiary support while managing heavy pressure to go full bore AI integration until then.
by chuckadams | 2025-12-03 22:12:30+00:00
Wolfram is kind of obsessed with cellular automata, even went and wrote a whole book about them titled "A New Kind of Science". The reception to it was a bit mixed. CA are Turing-complete, so yeah, you can compute anything with them, I'm just not sure that in itself leads to any greater Revealed Truths. Does make for some fun visualizations though.
by fleshmonad | 2025-12-03 22:13:16+00:00
We have textual slop, visual slop, audio slop, so we asked: "What else do we want to sloppify?". And then it dawned on me. ICs. ICs haven't been slopped yet — sure, we could ask the machine to generate some vhdl, but that isn't the same. So we present: Silicon Slop.

I am actually astonished. Is this what happens when the NYU board of directors tells every department they have to use and create AI, or they will stop funding? What is going on?
by mrguyorama | 2025-12-03 22:13:17+00:00
They claim they were following industry standard recommendation.

Or, you know, they just didn't really understand industry recommendations or what they were doing.

"Turns out our game actually spends most of its loading time generating terrain on the CPU" is not something you accidentally discover, and should have been known before they even thought about optimizing the game's loading time, since optimizing without knowing your own stats is not optimizing, and they wrote the code that loads the game!

Keep in mind this is the same team that accidentally caused instantly respawning patrols in an update about "Balancing how often enemy patrols spawn", the same group that couldn't make a rocket launcher lock on for months while blaming "Raycasts are hard", and released a mech that would shoot itself if you turned wrong, and spent the early days insisting that "The game is supposed to be hard" as players struggled with enemy armor calculations that would punish you for not shooting around enemy armor because it was calculating the position of that armor incorrectly, and tons of other outright broken functionality that have made it hard to play the game at times.

Not only do Arrowhead have kind of a long history of technical mediocrity (Magicka was pretty crashy on release, and has weird code even after all the bugfixes), but they also demonstrably do not test their stuff very well, and regularly release patches that have obvious broken things that you run into seconds into starting play, or even have outright regressions suggesting an inability to do version control.

"We didn't test whether our game was even slow to load on HDD in the first place before forcing the entire world to download and store 5x the data" is incompetence.

None of this gets into the utterly absurd gameplay decisions they have made, or the time they spent insulting players for wanting a game they spent $60 on to be fun and working.
by raincole | 2025-12-03 22:13:22+00:00
> Instead, she reacted to it with a level of negativity I'd never seen her direct at me before.

A few months ago, a friend of mine showed a poem she wrote for her newborn. Or more specifically, she asked ChatGPT to write for her newborn.

I almost acted like this ex-Microsoft senior. Tbh if I didn't know it was for her own child, I would have acted this way.

I (thought that I) managed ignoring my opinions about whether writing poems is a good use of AI and steering the topic to baby formula milk instead.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-12-03 22:13:31+00:00
Well, just to show you a microcosm of what happens when VCs find the bigger fool in the public market when they IPO money losing companies….

https://medium.com/@Arakunrin/the-post-ipo-performance-of-y-...

> One thing you're right about - Anthropic isn't surviving - it's thriving. Probably the fastest growing revenue in history.

Growing revenue and losing money is not “thriving”
by antonvs | 2025-12-03 22:13:40+00:00
> If you haven’t had a mind blown moment with AI yet, you aren’t doing it right or are anchoring in what you know vs discovering new tech.

Much of this boils down to people simply not understanding what’s really happening. Most people, including most software developers, don’t have the ability to understand these tools, their implications, or how they relate to their own intelligence.

> Edit: lol this forum :)

Indeed.
by ElijahLynn | 2025-12-03 22:14:17+00:00
SO fun!!!

fun experiment to get you tinkerers started, skip to the bottom play The Complete Loop - https://loopmaster.xyz/tutorials/how-to-synthesize-a-house-l...

Then, on line 21, with `pat('[~ e3a3c4]*4',(trig,velocity,pitches)->`.

Change *4 to *2 and back to *4, to reduce the interval that the "Chords" play. If you do it real fast with your backspace + 2 or backspace + 4 key, you can change the chords in realtime, and kinda vibe with the beat a little bit.

Definitely recommend wearing headphones to hear the entire audio spectrum (aka bass).*
by titzer | 2025-12-03 22:15:05+00:00
It's a long-standing problem in compilers, often referred to as the "phase ordering problem". In general, forward dataflow optimizations can be combined if they are monotonic (meaning, never make the code worse, or at least, never undo a previous step. It's possible to run forward dataflow problems together repeatedly to a fixpoint. In TurboFan a general graph reduction algorithm is [1] instantiated with a number of reducers, and then a fixpoint is run. The technique of trying to combine multiple passes has been tried a number of times. What doesn't seem so obvious is how to run optimizations that are not traditional forward dataflow problems or are indeed backward dataflow problems (like DCE) together with other transformations. Generally compilers get tuned by running them on lots of different kinds of code, often benchmarks, and then tinkering with the order of passes and other heuristics like loop unroll factors, thresholds for inlining, etc, and seeing what works best.

[1]was? TurboFan seems to have splintered into a number of pieces being reused in different ways these days
by karmasimida | 2025-12-03 22:15:09+00:00
That is the problem.

AI is optimized to solve a problem no matter what it takes. It will try to solve one problem by creating 10 more.

I think long time/term agentic AI is just snake oil at this point. AI works best if you can segment your task into 5-10 minutes chunks, including the AI generating time, correcting time and engineer review time. To put it another way, a 10 minute sync with human is necessary, otherwise it will go astray.

Then it just makes software engineering into bothering supervisor job. Yes I typed less, but I didn’t feel the thrill of doing so.
by ryandrake | 2025-12-03 22:15:26+00:00
Nothing says "this product is useful" quite like forcing people to use it and punishing people who don't. If it was that good, there'd be organic demand to use it. People would be begging to use it, going around their boss's back to use it.

The fact that companies have to force you to use it with quotas and threats is damning.
by anigbrowl | 2025-12-03 22:16:13+00:00
Music coding technology has been around a long time - think of tools like csound and pd and Max/MSP. They're great for coding synthesizers. Nobody uses them to do songs. Even Strudel has tools for basic GUI components because once you get past the novelty of 'this line of code is modulating the filter wowow' typing in numeric values for frequency or note duration is the least efficient way to interact with the machine.

Pro developers who really care about the sound variously write in C/C++ or use cross compilers for pd or Max. High quality oscillators, filters, reverb etc are hard work, although you can certainly get very good results with basic ones given today's fast processors.

Live coding is better for conditionals like 'every time [note] is played increment [counter], when [counter] > 15 reset [counter] to 0 and trigger [something else]'. But people who are focused on the result rather than the live coding performance tend to either make their own custom tooling (Autechre) or programmable Eurorack modules that integrate into a larger setup, eg https://www.perfectcircuit.com/signal/the-programmable-euror...

It's not that you can't get great musical results via coding, of course you can. But coding as performance is a celebration of the repl, not of the music per se.
by alsndv | 2025-12-03 22:16:21+00:00
A new way for security teams to connect AI agents directly to their Security Data Lake, and unlock AI workflows that simply haven’t been possible before. Built atop Scanner’s hyper-fast Security Data Lake platform, this enables AI agents to access ALL your security data for the full-context they need - delivering highly accurate results in mere seconds and at a fraction of the cost of other tools.
by dfxm12 | 2025-12-03 22:16:24+00:00
Speaking of "average", every political debate moderator should ask the candidates where they shop and how much milk and eggs cost. Ask them how much it is to fill up their car's gas tank. I don't necessarily think sortition is the answer, but I have more faith that the so called "hopelessly biased and ignorant average person" would address issues that affect me than I do with hopelessly biased and ignorant people like Trump, Johnson, Thune, Schumer and Jefferies, because I know they're only looking out for themselves.
by Eikon | 2025-12-03 22:16:53+00:00
> What is the use case for implementing a POSIX filesystem on top of an object store?

The use case is fully stateless infrastructure: your file/database servers become disposable and interchangeable (no "pets"), because all state lives in S3. This dramatically simplifies operations, scaling, and disaster recovery, and it's cheap since S3 (or at least, S3 compatible services) storage costs are very low.

The MinIO article's criticisms don't really apply here because ZeroFS doesn't store files 1:1 to S3. It uses an LSM-tree database backed by S3, which allows it to implement proper POSIX semantics with actual performance.
by wackget | 2025-12-03 22:17:12+00:00
> made possible with support from Nixxes Software, best known for developing high-quality PC ports of Sony’s biggest PlayStation titles

Now if only Nixxes would stop using Sony's stupid proprietary audio system in PC games, I'd be happy. Every Sony game causes my sound card to freak out and I lose the ability to control anything - even volume. My surround speakers stop working completely and I'm effectively forced into accepting mono audio.
by seafoamteal | 2025-12-03 22:17:12+00:00
Hi! Yes, I talk about this a little bit at the end and I solve Part 2 the normal way. This is a toy example that I did for fun. The objective was to introduce people to Program Construction and show how you can use formal methods to derive correct programs. Whether the juice is worth the squeeze is a judgement call that you make depending on how critical the software you are writing is.
by gishh | 2025-12-03 22:17:18+00:00
> There are many valid critiques of AI, but “there’s not much there” isn’t one of them.

I have solved more problems with tools like sed and awk, you know, actual tools, more than I’ve entered tokens into an LLM.

Nobody seemed to give a fuck as long as the problem was solved.

This it getting out of hand.
by sershe | 2025-12-03 22:17:18+00:00
Valve makes most of their money from Steam lock-in. Given these numbers and the pathetic state of all the alternative game stores, they are ONE company before Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. that richly deserves some antitrust enforcement

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/valves-reported-prof...

Not to say they are not great for Linux gaming. But this should not be mistaken for some kind of idealistic position. Windows a threat, they need to commoditize OS for gaming. At heart they still make Amazon's attempts at monopoly look like a lemonade stand :)
Ask HN: Meta blocks our legit business while scammers use our name freely
by akcreek | 2025-12-03 22:17:21+00:00
We're dealing with a growing impersonation problem and could use advice from people who have navigated anything similar.

Scammers are creating Facebook and Instagram pages pretending to be our company ([name-redacted]). They “hire” translators through DMs, get real work done for free, then demand a fee before the translator can “get paid.” We never hire through social platforms, but victims assume these pages are legitimate.

We report every fake page through Meta’s copyright and trademark forms. It usually takes about a week for each one to be removed, and by then new pages have already appeared. It’s endless whack-a-mole. We're now seeing negative reviews and Reddit threads accusing us of running the scam, and the reputational damage is starting to stack up.

We don't use these platforms personally or for business, but I tried creating an account and official page so we could at least put up a notice stating we don't hire through DMs. As soon as I created the account it was banned for “violating community guidelines.” I had only entered my name, DOB, email, password, and verified my email. I went through their video verification appeal and it was instantly denied as a permanent ban.

The same thing happened on Reddit. The account was banned right away and the appeal has been ignored for over a week.

How is it possible that scammers can create endless fake pages while a legitimate 10-year-old business with 23K positive reviews can't even create an account, much less post a warning?

We've reached out to our trademark and copyright attorney to see if they can help, but I wanted to ask HN, has anyone dealt with this? How do we get Meta to take real action against these impersonation scams, and how do we get a legitimate business account or page set up when the platform bans us on registration?
by nickff | 2025-12-03 22:17:32+00:00
But for 'AI' to be a winner-take-all market, it seems that the winner would have to be using customer data to improve the 'AI'. Not only do you have to believe that one of these (relatively) under-capitalized upstarts can corral the money, but also that they can convince (enterprise) customers to 'fork over' their proprietary data to only one provider, and also that the provider can then charge a monopoly rent.

Those all seem possible, but I wouldn't assign greater than a 50% probability to any of them, and the valuations seem to imply near-certainty.
by hmokiguess | 2025-12-03 22:17:33+00:00
I really like this initiative, I think the biggest value here isn't the multiple sessions or worktrees, but an interoperable protocol between these coding agents through a new UX. A sort of parent process orchestrator of the many agents is something I want, is there other tools that do that today? e.g. run Claude, Codex, Gemini, all together and sharing data with one another?
by spprashant | 2025-12-03 22:17:53+00:00
I don't know how much they are spending to be fair.

I am basing my observation on the noises they are making. They did put out a model called Nova but they are not drumming it up at all. The model page makes no claims of benchmarks or performance. There are no signs of them poaching talent. Their CEO has not been in the press singing praises about AI unlike every big tech CEO.

Maybe they have a skunk-works team on it but something tells me they are waiting for the paint to dry.