MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bigcat12345678 | 2025-12-30 15:17:07+00:00
If it has nothing to do with being Chinese founded, then why it stated obviously baseless statements without objections until myself pointed out the facts. I mean, manus is top tier by any measure in the startup scene, and someone just say that it's a joke, then sane people's immediate reaction should be asking why, right?

Why suddenly it becomes automatically accepted, other than being a Chinese founded startup, tell me, what else can prompts such mental inconsistency?
by V__ | 2025-12-30 15:17:32+00:00
I highly recommend Mentour Pilots videos on the topic, for an indepth introduction to the whole story and the new search:

https://youtu.be/Y5K9HBiJpuk?si=nsR14R7Fl4Nk4qpO

https://youtu.be/HIuXEU4H-XE?si=I_ZczAv-VmZT7rQn
by Suzuran | 2025-12-30 15:17:34+00:00
I am aware (of the Judenlettern decree). The reference to exactly this was intentional.

(Edit to make this really obvious: The joke here is that "fraktur = nazis" became such a meme that the nazis themselves were annoyed by it and forbade its use, but this is exactly the kind of thing the present administration would either be unaware of or simply ignore and then use fraktur intentionally to pander to neo-nazis.)
by digeka | 2025-12-30 15:18:07+00:00
Have you ever been scrolling through TikTok and wondered, “Is there an adult version of TikTok?” Many users on the app are asking the same questions. They want to know where they can share and enjoy more mature content. TikTok is popular and fun, but it has rules that limit what kind of content you can post. This has led to the emergence of new platforms. Often referred to as ‘adult TikTok,’ designed specifically for adult-themed videos.

If you are a content creator or a user interested in adult content, you are not alone in this curiosity!
by toss1 | 2025-12-30 15:18:14+00:00
How not; wouldn't it be straightforward to have tax rate tables based on transaction size? E.g., transaction <$10=0, <$100=0.1%, <$10k=0.2%, <$100k=0.3%, <$1MM=0.4%, =>$1MM=0.5%, with restructuring payments to avoid taxes to carry heavy penalties.

Not many poor people will be making million-dollar+ transactions, and it seems like taxing ALL transactions will help make the rich pay their fair share, as their money tends to have low velocity relative to consumer goods, but they still do a lot of transactions.

EDIT: Also it should have zero taxes on necessities such as food & non-luxury clothing, similarly to how current state/local sales taxes work.

Also, if there is sufficient tax rate and income to do UBI to above poverty level, wouldn't the need for a progressive tax structure become obsolete?
by moduspol | 2025-12-30 15:18:15+00:00
The comment you're replying to says other companies have taken the "software" and the "iPad". To genuinely believe that, one must have not spent much time using Tesla's software or "iPad" to compare with competitors.

It becomes more and more clear that traditional automakers see software as just another lowest-cost component of the car. I understand VW actually started putting effort into their software, but I haven't heard good things about it. Maybe it'll get better.
by a4isms | 2025-12-30 15:18:31+00:00
I am a former D-list tech blogger, and the thought of posting slop under my name horrifies me. But then again, I consider myself an author who has enjoyed the pleasant side-effect of minor notability. I never considered myself an influencer who happened to use writing to acquire more influence.

Anybody shipping slop around—whether written by interns and published under their name or written by machines—is not an author. They are an influencer, and reposting slop is what they do.
by phantasmish | 2025-12-30 15:18:37+00:00
This is more than just trivially true for Python in a scripting context, too, because it doesn’t do things like type coercion that some other scripting languages do. If you want to concat an int with a string you’ll need to cast the int first, for example. It also has a bunch of list-ish and dict-ish built in types that aren’t interchangeable. You have to “worry about types” more in Python than in some of its competitors in the scripting-language space.
by sokoloff | 2025-12-30 15:18:40+00:00
Which direction does the causation within that correlation (if any) flow?

I can easily conjure a scenario where high per-capita GDP makes trusting easier (either because there’s enough to go around and/or because there are police/judicial sanctions for violating trust) than in a hardscrabble low per-capita GDP society with lower (insufficient?) lawfulness.
by ferguu_ | 2025-12-30 15:18:41+00:00
Just letting you know, I think there might be something wrong with the code.

First time I ran it, just off the basic link, it eventually finished with a time of 36:42 (ran at 15:16)

Then I tried turning up the speed and it seemed to make numbers at first but erased its own progress with blank blocks, ending in gibberish.

Maybe another 100 prompts? haha.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-12-30 15:18:50+00:00
Quoting web standards, you are more optimistic than I am, unfortunately, nobody uses them consistently or accurately (look at PUT vs POST for create / update as a really good example of this - nobody agrees) its a shame too, there's a lot of richness to the web spec. Most people don't even use "HEAD" to ensure they aren't making wasteful REST calls if they already have the data.
by ojosilva | 2025-12-30 15:19:03+00:00
Google is in that game too with "AI Mode", stealing traffic from ChatGPT.

But as OP and other threads here highlighted, the other ~half of the gold sits in more fenced communities like WhatsApp, IG, Telegram, and other messaging and non-digital communities that are getting their "news" and "information" from viral shorts from IG, TikTok and YT Shorts.
by kstrauser | 2025-12-30 15:20:29+00:00
> Third, virtual environments are literally just a place on disk for those dependencies

I had a recent conversation with a colleague. I said how nice it is using uv now. They said they were glad because they hated messing with virtualenvs so much that preferred TypeScript now. I asked them what node_modules is, they paused for a moment, and replied “point taken”.

Uv still uses venvs because it’s the official way Python stores all the project packages in one place. Node/npm, Go/go, and Rust/cargo all do similar things, but I only really here people grousing about Python’s version, which as you say, you can totally ignore and never ever look at.
by ryjo | 2025-12-30 15:20:32+00:00
Hey, HN. This is a small C library that enables usage of POSIX message queues (mqueue) in CLIPS. This enables IPC between multiple CLIPS processes using kernel-managed message queues, including load-balancing receives and priority-handling.

The repo includes a fairly full test suite as well as examples that demonstrate multi-process communication between CLIPS rules engines.

My purpose in providing this library (and other CLIPS libraries I've released) is to expand the usecases in which CLIPS can be leveraged. Feedback welcome.
by dent9 | 2025-12-30 15:20:36+00:00
Bro idk why you waste your time writing all this. No one cares that you were an early adopter, all that means is that you used the rudimentary LLM implementations that were available from 2022-2024 which are now completely obselete. Whatever experience you think you have with AI tools is useless because you clearly haven't kept up with the times. AI platforms and tools have been changing quickly. Every six months the capabilities have massively improved.

Next time before you waste ten minutes typing out these self aggrandizing tirades maybe try asking the AI to just write it for you instead
by tucnak | 2025-12-30 15:21:11+00:00
Honestly, I'm not familiar with it. I had only played with RxInfer, if only to try the so-called "message-passing" paradigm. My grasp on probability is really lacking, in fact I picked up prediction markets and Julia to get better at it.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the deal with NumPyro why you chose to work it?
by visarga | 2025-12-30 15:21:35+00:00
So, what is the solution? Senior engineer looks over PR and signs LGTM? That is just "vibe testing". The worst kind of testing. I think the author is right, setting up tests to form a reactive environment for coding agents will lead us to a new golden age. If you later find some issue with your test case coverage, you expand it. But it is good to do it from the start as throroughtly as possible.
by _aavaa_ | 2025-12-30 15:22:02+00:00
I'll start by saying that this seems irreverent to my previous comment.

That being said, I half agree but I think we see things differently. Based on what I've seen, the "illiterate" are those who would have otherwise dropped out or done a poor job previously. Now instead of exiting the field, or slowly shipping code they didn't understand (because that has always been a thing) they are shovelling more slop.

That's a problem, but it's at most gotten worse rather than come out of thin air.

But, there are still competent software engineers and I have seen with my own eyes how AI usage makes them more productive.

Similarly, some of those "illiterate" are those who now have the ability to make small apps for themselves to solve a problem they would not be able to before, and I argue that's a good thing.

Ultimately, people care about the solution to their problems, not the code. If (following the original anecdote) someone with an LLM can build a UI for their project I frankly don't think it matters whether they understood the code. The UI is there, it works, and they can get one with the thing that is actually important: using the UI for their bigger goal.
by jen20 | 2025-12-30 15:22:02+00:00
I'd argue the default is that work _does_ move across system threads, and single-threaded async/await is the uncommon case.

Whether async "tasks" move across system threads is a property of the executor - by default C#, Swift and Go (though without the explicit syntax) all have work-stealing executors that _do_ move work between threads.

In Rust, you typically are more explicit about that choice, since you construct the executor in your "own" [1] code and can make certain optimizations such as not making futures Send if you build a single threaded one, again depending on the constraints of the executor.

You can see this in action in Swift with this kind of program:

import Foundation

for i in 1...100 {
Task {
let originalThread = Thread.current
try? await Task.sleep(for: Duration.seconds(1))
if Thread.current != originalThread {
print("Task \(i) moved from \(originalThread) to \(Thread.current)")
}
}
}

RunLoop.main.run()

Note to run it as-is you have to use a version of Swift < 6.0, which has prevented Thread.current being exposed in asynchronous context.

[1]: I'm counting the output of a macro here as your "own" code.
by nickmonad | 2025-12-30 15:22:45+00:00
This is the fundamental question which motivated the post. :)

I think there are a few different ways to approach the answer, and it kind of depends on what you mean by "draw the line between an allocation happening or not happening." At the surface level, Zig makes this relatively easy, since you can grep for all instances of `std.mem.Allocator` and see where those allocations are occurring throughout the codebase. This only gets you so far though, because some of those Allocator instances could be backed by something like a FixedBufferAllocator, which uses already allocated memory either from the stack or the heap. So the usage of the Allocator instance at the interface level doesn't actually tell you "this is for sure allocating memory from the OS." You have to consider it in the larger context of the system.

And yes, we do still need to track vacant/occupied memory, we just do it at the application level. At that level, the OS sees it all as "occupied". For example, in kv, the connection buffer space is marked as vacant/occupied using a memory pool at runtime. But, that pool was allocated from the OS during initialization. As we use the pool we just have to do some very basic bookkeeping using a free-list. That determines if a new connection can actually be accepted or not.

Hopefully that helps. Ultimately, we do allocate, it just happens right away during initialization and that allocated space is reused throughout program execution. But, it doesn't have to be nearly as complicated as "reinventing garbage collection" as I've seen some other comments mention.
by dylan604 | 2025-12-30 15:23:11+00:00
Audio has become a WTF situation for me. I grew up with speakers that had a driver for low ends some where in the 8"-12", a driver for the mids typically in the 4"-6", and then a third for the highs in various forms of a tweeter. These were all internally crossed over so that only a single cable was necessary.

Now, we have "satellite" speakers that are smaller than the tweeter and are touted as being all that's necessary. Sound bars are also using speakers the size of an old tweeter just in an array with separation between left/right sides smaller than the width of the TV. Some how, we let the marketing people from places like Bose convince us that you can make the same sound from tiny speakers.

Multichannel mixes used to also include a dedicated stereo mix for those mere mortals without dedicated surround setups. These were created in the same studio with mixing decisions made based on the content. Now, we just get downmixes made by some math equation on a chip that has no concept of what the content is and just applies rules.
by shakna | 2025-12-30 15:23:15+00:00
Anything around DirectX 10 and older has issues with Windows, these days.

One more popular example is Grid 2, another is Morrowind. Both crash on launch, unless you tweak a lot of things, and even then it won't always succeed.

Need for Speed II: SE is "platinum" on Wine, and pretty much unable to be run at all on Windows 11.
by _ache_ | 2025-12-30 15:24:04+00:00
No no, it's the same.

The OFAC apply to US companies only and forbid VISA/MasterCard to manage her transactions (and a LOT of others companies ... like a lot, not just Visa and MasterCard).

Legally Europeans bank shouldn't apply US sanctions, maybe they do, but legally, they should not (CJUE thing, I'm not an expert). I don't think it ever happen, because ... money launder generally doesn't complains about US sanction, it's wasn't a problem.
by djoldman | 2025-12-30 15:24:19+00:00
From the linked https://federalcourt.press/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Eighth...

> Typographic decisions should be made for a purpose. The Times of London chose the typeface Times New Roman to serve an audience looking for a quick read. Lawyers don’t want their audience to read fast and throw the document away; they want to maximize retention. Achieving that goal requires a different approach—different typefaces, different column widths, different writing conventions. Briefs are like books rather than newspapers. The most important piece of advice we can offer is this: read some good books and try to make your briefs more like them.

This is somewhat ironic as, if I'm not mistaken, it is written by lawyers and uses Times New Roman. (Does the 8th circuit want the reader to read fast and throw the document away?)
by toss1 | 2025-12-30 15:24:38+00:00
YES!! I've long thought the tax rates on cap gains should be extremely progressive with holding time, ranging from 99%+ for sub-second holding (HFT) to sub 5% for decade+ holding periods. This would also effectively eliminate the utility of basis reset on inheritance, since the rate for multi-decade holding goes so low.

Also a great idea I saw recently is to treat any encumbrance of a capital asset as a realization event. For example, early investors in a company holding stock may have $millions in unrealized gains. Those gains are 'realized' and taxed on sale of the stock. However, if they take a loan using the stock as collateral, it is not taxed because there is a matching obligation to repay the loan and the stock ownership doesn't change (except in a default). Such loans should be taxed as a realization event, since they are pledging the stock at its current value, not its comparatively microscopic original purchase value.
by mapontosevenths | 2025-12-30 15:25:04+00:00
The thing you're likely missing is that you've forgotten what programming is at a high level.

A program is a series of instructions that tell a computer how to perform a task. The specifics of the language aren't as important as the ability to use them to get the machine to perform the tasks instructed.

We can now use English as that language, which allows more people than ever to program. English isn't as expressive as Python wielded by an expert, yet. It will be. This is bad for people who used to leverage the difficulty of the task to their own advantage, but good for everyone else.

Also, keep in mind that todays LLM's are the worst they'll ever be. They will continue to improve, and you will stagnate if you don't learn to use the new tools effectively.
by mashlol | 2025-12-30 15:25:33+00:00
AI almost always reduces the time from "I need to implement this feature" to "there is some code that implements this feature".

However in my experience, the issue with AI is the potential hidden cost down the road. We either have to:

1. Code review the AI generated code line by line to ensure it's exactly what you'd have produced yourself when it is generated or

2. Pay an unknown amount of tech tebt down the road when it inevitably wasn't what you'd have done yourself and it isn't extensible, scalable, well written code.
by jader201 | 2025-12-30 15:25:37+00:00
I feel like the comments/articles that continue to point out how LLMs cannot solve complex problems are missing a few important points:

1. LLMs are only getting better from here. With each release, we continue to see improvements in their capabilities. And strong competition is driving this innovation, and will probably not stop anytime soon. Much of the world is focused on this right now, and therefore much of the world’s investments are being poured into solving this problem.

2. They’re using the wrong models for the wrong job. Some models are better than others at some tasks. And this gap is only shrinking (see point 1).

3. Even if LLMs can’t solve complex problems (and I believe they can/will, see points 1 and 2), much of our jobs is refactoring, writing tests, and hand coding simpler tasks, which LLMs are undeniably good at.

4. It’s natural to deny LLMs can eventually replace much/all of what we do. Our careers depend on LLMs not being able to solve complex problems so that we don’t risk/fear losing our careers. Not to mention the overall impact to the general way our lives are impacted if AGI becomes a reality.

I’ve been doing this a while, and I’ve never seen the boost to productivity that LLMs bring. Yes, I’ve seen them make a mess of things and get things wrong. But see points 1-3.
by fancyfredbot | 2025-12-30 15:25:45+00:00
In my view the reasons why LLMs may be less effective in a corporate environment is quite different from the human factors in mythical man month.

I think that the reason LLMs don't work as well in a corporate environment with large codebases and complex business logic, but do work well in greenfield projects, is linked to the amount of context the agents can maintain.

Many types of corporate overhead can be reduced using an LLM. Especially following "well meant but inefficient" process around JIRA tickets, testing evidence, code review, documentation etc.
by leoc | 2025-12-30 15:26:12+00:00
Thanks for that. They seem to have been embarrassed into putting the stanford.edu page back up for another few months. I think my first encounter with Stanford's website archival policies was when I found that they'd shot an old, once-much-hyped interview with Alvy Ray Smith into the void: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28064844 . Anything on the Stanford website which purports to be education or history is a marketing op wearing a smiling mask. That in itself would be largely fine, but when the marketing objectives have been met they'll delete everything with what seems to be a contemptuous glee, refusing to even use the Wayback Machine. Doesn't say much for that institution.
by codelikeawolf | 2025-12-30 15:26:30+00:00
> Did you (rightfully) want to tear your eyes out when some LLM suggested that you script with .mjs?

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment. JS is a fantastic Python replacement for scripts. Node.js has added all kinds of utility functions that help you write scripts without needing external dependencies. Bun, Deno, and Node.js can execute TS files (if you want to bring types into the mix). All 3 runtimes are sufficiently performant. If you do end up needing external dependencies, they're only a package.json away. I write all my scripts in JS files these days.
by throwaway290 | 2025-12-30 15:27:20+00:00
> We’re entering a new chapter where simplicity is sophistication again, where global stylesheets coexist peacefully with scoped rules.

does anyone know, scoped style rules are here to stay or not? <style scoped> is deprecated and in HTML spec <style> is not allowed in body https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-st...

(This is how I suspect it's LLM slop, it's such an important thing and it just is skipped without mention)
by netsharc | 2025-12-30 15:27:32+00:00
I've read elsewhere that maybe the cops were finding bits of information (it was just fragment of files, they were not recovered fully) and the whole thing ("He's been planning to fly to the middle of the Indian Ocen!") is just wild speculation backed up with weak "evidence".

Anyway, it's Malaysian authorities. I've lived in the region...

But since we're not citing links, this is all gossip...
Does extreme remote proctoring measure developer skills?
by ltsiciliano | 2025-12-30 15:28:14+00:00
I want to share my experience taking a CNCF Kubernetes certification exam today, in case it helps other developers make an informed decision.

This is a certification aimed at developers.

After seven months of intensive Kubernetes preparation, including hands-on work, books, paid courses, constant practice exams, and even building an AI-based question simulator, I started the exam and could not get past the first question.

Within less than 10 minutes, I was already warned for:
- whispering to myself while reasoning
- breathing more heavily due to nervousness

At that point, I was more focused on the proctor than on the exam itself. The technical content became secondary due to constant fear of additional warnings.

I want to be clear: I do not consider those seven months wasted. The knowledge stays with me. But I am willing to give up the certificate itself if the evaluation model makes it impossible to think normally.

If the proctoring rules are so strict that you cannot whisper or regulate your breathing, I honestly question why there is no physical testing center option.

I was also required to show drawers, hide coasters, and remove a child’s headset that was not even on the desk. The room was clean and compliant.

In real software engineering work, talking to yourself is normal. Rubber duck debugging is a well-known problem-solving technique. Prohibiting it feels disconnected from how developers actually work.

I am not posting this to attack anyone. I am sharing a factual experience and would genuinely like to hear from others:
- Have you had similar experiences with CNCF or other remote-proctored exams?
- Do you think this level of proctoring actually measures technical skill?