MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kace91 | 2025-12-04 07:03:22+00:00
You haven’t addressed the original question. The point is not whether the QA understands the codebase, but whether the QA understands its own test system.

If yes, the QA is manuallish (considering manual == no automate by AI) and we’re still bottlenecked, so speeding up the engineer was a loss for nothing.

If no, because QA is also AI, then you have a product with no humans eyes on it being tested by another system with no human eyes of it. So effectively nobody knows what it does.

If you think LLMs are anywhere near that level of trust I don’t know what you’re smoking. They’re still doing things like “fixing” tests by removing relevant non passing cases every day.
by renewiltord | 2025-12-04 07:03:40+00:00
This kind of don’t ask don’t tell stuff is fine. You want to have a test where passing it is being smart enough to be able to simulate being clean.

In general, this principle works for lots of things. Drug use at your office job? No problem so long as I can’t tell you’re on drugs. And so on and so forth.

The alternative isn’t some clean job. It’s where people who are incredibly stupid and scatterbrained have a “reasonable accommodation” and then you’re on a plane run by a fucking moron so that when the other competent pilot falls ill the moron will have to fly it by himself and then you all die.

You thought you had 2x redundancy? Well one of the machines was always failing. No thanks. Let’s keep doing what we’re doing.
by watwut | 2025-12-04 07:03:44+00:00
Comsidering what I described is how tech companies actually function and functioned in the past, theoretical competition wont help.

They are competing themselves into massive unprofitability. Eventually they will die or do the above in cooperation. Maybe there will bw minor snandal about it, but that sort of collution is not prosecuted or seriously investigated if done by big companies.

So, it will happen exactly as it always happens with tech.
by SanjayMehta | 2025-12-04 07:03:47+00:00
In real life, European hypocrisy is off the charts.

BBC got caught manipulating videos featuring Trump. 12000 people were detained in the UK for thought crimes. In one year. One little old lady was arrested for praying silently.

France went after Durov.

Russia media IS banned, hiding behind ISP incompetence doesn't count.

Come on. Wake up. We who have lived under actual socialist dictators can see what's happening.
by zozbot234 | 2025-12-04 07:05:05+00:00
> It's speculative price gouging ... if you monitor market trends, anticipate needs, and act quickly, such as buying RAM ahead of a known upcoming supply crunch, you're rewarded with access at the original price

The word for "monitoring market trends, anticipating needs and acting quickly" is, well, speculation. Why should a retailer not be allowed to speculate and hold more product stock when they anticipate a future crunch? In fact, the whole reason prices have become so volatile right now is that this supply crunch was not properly anticipated.

The reason why retailers are not "price fixing" is that price fixing involves setting an artificial ceiling on total production; retailers are not in a position to do this, and there is no evidence at all that DRAM makers are doing this either.
by Aurornis | 2025-12-04 07:05:41+00:00
> It's 100% retailers price gouging with their current stock that they got for cheap

The retail price of a product is a function of the market rate at the intersection of supply and demand. The price paid for inventory on the shelf doesn’t matter.

It works both ways. If retailers bought a lot of RAM at high prices and then the market suddenly dropped, they could have to sell it at a loss.

Some people get irrationally angry at this, but you do it too. If you bought a house for $500K and the market went up such that it was worth $700K, you wouldn’t think it was “price gouging” to list it at market rate. You’re just trading an asset for cash at the current price. The price you bought it at is irrelevant to the price you’re going to sell it for.
by Xixi | 2025-12-04 07:05:42+00:00
Steward-ownership is a philosophy more than an actual structure, my understanding is that each such company is in practice structured somewhat differently.

This article explains roughly how Patagonia is structured: https://medium.com/@purpose_network/the-patagonia-structure-...

For Patagonia a trust owns 100% of the voting rights, while a charity collects 100% of the dividends. I don't doubt that there are ways the structure could be subverted, but it's a far cry from "money without oversight".

Do you have examples of Steward-owned companies that ended up with "well, we might as well spend the extra profits on executive benefits"-issues?

(I personally think Steam should go in that direction, otherwise I'm afraid enshittification is unavoidable once Gabe Newell is no longer at the helm)
by parpfish | 2025-12-04 07:05:45+00:00
I think that an ideal race league would use WRC-inspired homologation rules and little else (except for some safety features)

Any chassis size. Whatever aero you want. Any engine size/configuration. The only constraint is that it needs to be something you can put into production.

we’d get to see a Cambrian explosion of weird race car variants that would make race day strategizing wild. and we’d really get to showcase cool creative engineering. And we’d eventually see the benefits of that engineering trickle down into normal production cars we all drive
by tianqi | 2025-12-04 07:05:45+00:00
This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Micron's reversible exit from one of its businesses is clearly does not signify the end of the PC era. As long as the demand for DIY PCs persists, there will be suppliers providing the products needed. If you follow the industrial memory market, you probably know that it is currently experiencing a severe supply shortage. I think Micron's decision simply reflects the current market situation.
by Slow_Hand | 2025-12-04 07:06:03+00:00
The nuance of a skilled player in the moment is a beautiful thing to behold, but saying programmed music isn't "real music" is like saying that film acting isn't real acting, but theater acting is.

It's like saying a novel isn't real speaking, but a speech is.

Like animating an image isn't real, but recording a video is.

If that's your preference, then that's alright. But it's a silly distinction to make.
by franga2000 | 2025-12-04 07:07:42+00:00
Is it better? As with all price gouging, better for those who can afford it, sure, but not for those who can't. The proper way to combat scalping is to implement fair allocation methods (for a start purchase quantity limits) and punish people for scalping.

Look at how most places handled war-time gasoline shortages. Rationing coupons, purchase limits, demand leveling (like the odd-even system), price or profit controls, strict prosecution of scalpers and price gougers. And it's not like only the communists did this - even the US had most if not all of these things. And it worked far better than the shit that happened during the pandemic shortages. Governments used to know how to govern.
by theshrike79 | 2025-12-04 07:09:17+00:00
A rich billionaire can still be affected by shareholders. If they stop providing shareholder value (due to mass boycotts or public scandals), they have to change.

If it's a Putin-style dictator who has spent a quarter century digging his claws into every facet of the country, there's literally nothing you can do that doesn't involve physical violence to change things.
by Chinjut | 2025-12-04 07:09:33+00:00
The fact that there is a precise analogy between how Ax + s = b works when A is a matrix and the other quantities are vectors, and how this works when everything is scalars or what have you, is a fundamental insight which is useful to notationally encode. It's good to be able to readily reason that in either case, x = A^(-1) (b - s) if A is invertible, and so on.

It's good to be able to think and talk in terms of abstractions that do not force viewing analogous situations in very different terms. This is much of what math is about.
by alexashka | 2025-12-04 07:09:40+00:00
It's a problem, it's just not the root problem.

The root problem is nepo babies.

Whether it's capitalism or communism or whatever China has currently - it's all people doing everything to give their own children every unfair advantage and lie about it.

Why did people flee to America from Europe? Because Europe was nepo baby land.

Now America is nepo baby land and very soon China will be nepo baby land.

It's all rather simple. Western 'culture' is convincing everyone the nepo babies running things are actually uber experts because they attended university. Lol.
by emil-lp | 2025-12-04 07:09:40+00:00
Of course, but they can't be on adventures 24/7, that's the point.

Kids aren't supposed to have fun 24/7. It's impossible.

The problem is what happens the moment the "fun" stops. If everybody reaches for their phones, then that's an issue that cannot be fixed by your "just have more fun" mindset.

These kids are set up to fail.
by sethaurus | 2025-12-04 07:09:41+00:00
Oh my god, it's a Quine!

This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).

I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.
by karmakurtisaani | 2025-12-04 07:10:58+00:00
> This is so wrong it can only come from a place of inexperience and ignorance.

Thanks for the laughs :D

> Show a child a matrix numerically and they can understand it, show them Ax+s=b, and watch the confusion.

Show a HN misunderstood genius Riemann Zeta function as a Zeta() and they think they can figure out it's zeros. Show it as a Greek letter and they'll lament how impossible it is to understand.
by hansmayer | 2025-12-04 07:11:07+00:00
Whether it "generated billions" is a wrong angle to look at this. What is relevant is the relation between the spend, or the committed spend and the income. I don´t believe that YT at any point committed to investing literally 1000x of its yearly revenue into a partner company, nor do I remember its CEO using made up words such as "annualised revenue" that keep being spat out by both OpenAI and Antropic CEOs, in the sense of "projecting the max monthly revenue as annual and fooling the investors".
by Maxion | 2025-12-04 07:12:26+00:00
Simple web pages can be made small with modern tooling, e.g. AstroJS.

The problem is that most web pages these days fundamentally are not simple.

Rather than trying to make web pages small, the real effort would be in designing web pages to be simple.

The large majority of software devs, PMs and the like don't really know how to do anything else than a Node + React webapp.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-12-04 07:14:17+00:00
Low latency is desirable for stock traders. Most of the data center growth isn't driven by that but by non latency critical workloads such as AI.

The reason, data centers choose to be near London is because there is no pricing advantage to go up north. Even though energy is plentiful, readily accessible, and often curtailed when there's too much of it there. If there was a pricing difference, you'd see a lot more economic activity up north.

Basically the physical advantage is there but the lack of economics cover it up and wipe out the advantage.
by Grisu_FTP | 2025-12-04 07:14:52+00:00
Just like Windows 11 isnt Windows 95, Linux today isnt Linux from 1995. Even if you use Arch, with nothing configured, still in the install CLI its pretty much just: 'station wlan0 connect "SSID"' 'enter Password:*** ' Done and this is the worst case scenario, with arch, a minimalist distro, where most things arent there or configured by default.
by ceuk | 2025-12-04 07:15:39+00:00
Basically the same story here for me. I have a trove of audiobooks I've carted around with me from house to house since I left home which my kids now eagerly pick from each night to listen to at bedtime. I've even supplemented my collection considerably since from eBay and the like.

It's just such a great medium. Fairly resilient, incredibly easy to use, compact, cheap ish.

And of course there's the heady dose of nostalgia for us old gits :)

If anyone has any recommendations I'd love to hear them. Top one from me has to be the BBC dramatised Lord of the Rings adaptation which I myself have been listening to off and on since I was around 5 or 6
by HappyTeam | 2025-12-04 07:17:04+00:00
We’re launching a free beta of our Fine-tuning SDK for large language models. It’s designed to make LLM fine-tuning flexible and scalable, without the usual infrastructure headaches.

You can focus on model innovation—leave scheduling, distributed frameworks, and infra to us.

Join the waitlist for free beta access, and we’d love to hear your feedback!
by pmontra | 2025-12-04 07:17:39+00:00
This is the last season with Renault as a F1 engine manufacturer. Their team (Alpine) will use Mercedes engine from 2026.

There will be many changes next year. Audi enters as manufacturer with its own team (they bought Sauber.) The two Red Bull teams will use their own Red Bull engine, with the help of Ford. Honda will power Aston Martin. The new Cadillac team will use Ferrari engines and build its own engine for 2028.
by hgomersall | 2025-12-04 07:18:31+00:00
I learnt the most from bad teachers#, but only when motivated. I was forced to go away and really understand things rather than get a sufficient understanding from the teacher. I had to put much more effort in. Teachers don't replace effort, and I see no reasons LLMs will change that. What they do though is reduced the time to finding the relevant content, but I expect at some poorly defined cost.

# The truly good teachers were primarily motivation agents, providing enough content, but doing so in a way that meant I fully engaged.
by DexesTTP | 2025-12-04 07:19:15+00:00
Basically, for this specific structure, they had to develop their own "sub structures" on the 1d line. These sub structures are known to create one little thing going diagonally (and then leave a bunch of debris behind, but that doesn't matter too much for that first step, they called this custom part "the fuse"). Then, there is a known technique where taking "diagonal moving objects" created on the same y-coordinate and placing them at the "right x position" makes the collide in a way where you can "program" where to create diagonal moving objects but at arbitrary positions on the screen (this is called a "binary construction arm"). And then, once you can create these anywhere on the screen, then you've basically won ; there's another technique to turn arbitrary positions into arbitrary shapes ("extreme compression construction arm", or ECCA), and it's "just" a matter of making the ECCA clean up all of the debris and build a new fuse but moved over.

Of course, the "just" here does the heavy lifting and represents over two years of exploration, writing algorithms for how to clean up everything, and so on.
by zozbot234 | 2025-12-04 07:19:39+00:00
If you want to be "fair" for a necessity such as gasoline, you can have tradable rationing coupons. That way you are rewarded if you buy and use less gasoline, but the excess windfall due to the shortage is still transfered to you and away from the supplier. But even this assumes that gasoline is in fixed supply and there is no way of increasing its total production by paying more, which is not a very good assumption.
by finaard | 2025-12-04 07:19:59+00:00
> almost every line of code I write usually requires some deliberate though

That's probably the worst case for trying to use a LLM for coding.

A lot of the code it'll produce will be incorrect on the first try - so to avoid sitting through iterations of absolute garbage you want the LLM to be able to compile the code. I typically provide a makefile which compiles the code, and then runs a linter with a strict ruleset and warnings set to error, and allow it to run make without prompting - so the first version I get to see compiles, and doesn't cause lint to have a stroke.

Then I typically make it write tests, and include the tests in the build process - for "hey, add tests to this codebase" the LLM is performing no worse than your average cheap code monkey.

Both with the linter and with the tests you'll still need to check what it's doing, though - just like the cheap code monkey it may disable lint on specific lines of code with comments like "the linter is wrong", or may create stub tests - or even disable tests, and then claim the tests were always failing, and it wasn't due to the new code it wrote.
by Epa095 | 2025-12-04 07:20:56+00:00
Good work!

Does anyone else think that the government should do something like this? Either enforce that vendors sends their offers to a central database which is publicly accessible, or at least make it available so the vendors can choose to send data there (maybe enforce it for big vendors, to get it started).

In general I think it makes sense for the government to be responsible for the market place, and the infrastructure around the market. The data should be avaliable publicly through a API so one could build different frontends and analysis services on it.

Example markets are electricity, deposits, mortgages, housing.
by DeepComputing | 2025-12-04 07:22:08+00:00
The DC-ROMA RISC-V AI PC, aka the DC-ROMA RISC-V Mainboard II for Framework Laptop 13, enables local execution of large language models (LLMs), allowing AI applications to call local LLM APIs without relying on cloud services. This ensures that users maintain full control over their data, enhancing security and privacy.

It's powered by ESWIN EIC7702 AI SoC, featuring 8 SiFive's high-performance P550 IP cores.
by Grisu_FTP | 2025-12-04 07:22:11+00:00
How is it having a Linux phone? Do you use it as your main Phone? I kinda want to try it on an old phone i have just to tinker around a bit but that will never be a good of a test as using it as your main device is.

How well do android apps work? what about banking apps? any issues that would make u NOT recommend it to other people? Are there many apps that are made for linux phones (or have a UI that works good with phones) so that you are not missing anything?
by owenHochwald | 2025-12-04 07:22:34+00:00
# Volt a Terminal-native HTTP client that's also an insanely fast load tester

Hey HN! First post on here, I'm Owen, a CS student at UBC, and I built Volt because I was tired of context-switching between Postman for API testing and separate tools for load testing.

## What is Volt?

Volt is a CLI-first HTTP client written in Go that basically offers the features of Postman with the performance of a load-testing tool. Think "Postman meets Apache Bench" but actually insanely fast (beating other Go load testers like hey by almost 4x).

Also, the UX improvements are legit with being able to instantly open the service from anywhere and submit a request within 2 keystrokes, using vim keybindings.

## Why I built it

It made no sense to me why I should be switching between... - Postman for testing APIs during development - Apache Bench/wrk for basic load testing - More complex tools when I needed serious performance testing

I wanted one tool that could handle my entire HTTP testing workflow in the place I already develop my code: the terminal.

## Performance

Volt achieves *213,000 requests/second* on standard hardware in a local environment.

When comparing to live API endpoints with alternatives, Volt is 3.9x faster than hey as just a starter...

## Key Features

*Terminal-native workflow:* - Save and organize requests in collections with request autocompletion based on your previous patterns - Beautiful terminal UI with syntax highlighting

*Dual-mode operation:* - Single request mode: Test APIs like Postman - Load test mode: Stress test with configurable concurrency, duration, and rate limiting

*Developer experience:* - Request history - Response inspection with JSON/XML formatting - Custom headers, auth methods, body types

## Why terminal-native matters

1. *Speed*: No GUI overhead, instant startup 2. *Scriptable*: Easy to integrate into CI/CD pipelines 3. *Reproducible*: Requests saved as code, not binary blobs 4. *SSH-friendly*: Works perfectly on remote servers

---

The project is open source and I'd love your feedback! Whether you're looking for a faster Postman alternative or a load testing tool that doesn't bottleneck before your API does, give Volt a try.

Happy to answer any questions about the architecture, benchmarking methodology, or roadmap!
by sksksk | 2025-12-04 07:23:09+00:00
I've come to the opinion that for the vast majority of apps I've built, it could all be built using HTML + CSS (all built server side). I can sprinkle in little bits of interactivity using something like HTMX. And I'll have a website that is very easy to optimise, has phenomenal backwards compatibility, and gets rid of a whole class of issues associated with SPAs.

I often regret in my career not pushing back more on "requirements" that ended up requiring a more complicated app, whereas the customer would have been happier with a simpler solution.
by Slow_Hand | 2025-12-04 07:23:56+00:00
> i'd argue that ... composing a fugue in the style of bach is much easier in tidal than in a DAW or other music software. on the more experimental end, a composition in which no measure ever repeats fully is trivial to realize in tidalcycles - it takes only a handful of lines of code to build up a stochastic composition based on markov chains, perlin noise and conditional pattern transformations. via the latter you can actually sculpt these generative processes into something that sounds intentional and follows some inner logic rather than just being random.

I agree that it's easier to build a composition in a coding environment that uses stochastic models, markov chains, noise, conditions, etc. But I don't think that actually makes for compelling music. It can render a rough facsimile of the structure, but the result is uncanny. The magic is still in the tiny choices and long arc of the composition. Leaving it to randomness is not sufficient.

Bach's style of composition _is_ broadly algorithmic. So much so that his style is taught in conservatories as the foundational rules of Western multi-voice writing, but it's still not a perfect machine. Taste and judgment have to be exercised at key moments in the composition on a micro level. You can intellectually understand florid counterpoint on a rules-based level, but you still have to listen to what's being written to decide if it's musically compelling or if it needs to be revised.

The proof is in the pudding. If coded music were that good, we would be able to list composers who work in this manner. We might even have charting music. But we don't, and the best work is still being done with instruments in hand, or written on a staff, or sequenced in a DAW.

I want this paradigm to work - and perhaps it can - but I've yet to hear work that lives up to the promise.
by squigz | 2025-12-04 07:24:39+00:00
> The reason these series always get compared is because Indy’s tight rules make it less compelling while F1’s more open rules make it less competitive.

I'm new to racing, but can you elaborate on this? How are F1's rules "open"? They seem just about as strict if not more so than IndyCar to me? At least I don't think IndyCar has "ahead at the apex" rules?

> In the end you end up wondering if your favorites could hack it in the WRC.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Screw "Grill the Grid" or whatever nonsense they're doing on YouTube now; let's see the F1 grid do a rally.