MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 317070 | 2025-12-02 21:03:55+00:00
People need to understand that OpenAI is not a publicly traded company. Sam is allowed to be outrageously optimistic about his best case scenarios, as long as he is correct with OpenAI's investors. But those investors are not "the public", so he can publicly state pretty much anything he wants, as long as it is not contradicting facts.

So he cannot say "OpenAI made 20B profit last year." but can say "OpenAI will make 20B revenue next year." Optimism is not a crime.
by bgirard | 2025-12-02 21:03:55+00:00
It's a fun trope to repeat but that's not what OpenAI is doing. I get a ton of value from ChatGPT and Codex from my subscription. As long as the inference is not done at a lost this analogy doesn't hold. They're not paying me to use it. They are generating output that is very valuable to me. Much more than my subscription cost.

I've been able to help setup cross app automation for my partner's business, remodel my house, plan a trip of Japan and assist with the cultural barrier, vibe code apps, technical support and so much more.
by bblaylock | 2025-12-02 21:04:06+00:00
I haven't had any issue moving projects between node, bun, and deno for years. I don't agree that the risk of bun failing as a company affects anthropic at all. Bun has a permissible license that anthropic could fork from, anthropic likely knew that oven had a long runway and isn't in immediate danger, and switching to a new js cli tool is not the huge lift most people think it is in 2025. Why pay for something you are already getting for free and can expect to keep getting for free for at least four years, and buy for less if it fails later?
by maxglute | 2025-12-02 21:04:33+00:00
Demand/suppy economics is not so hypothetical.

Illustration numbers: AI demand premium = $150 hardware with $50 electricity. Normal demand = $50 hardware with $50 electricity. This is Nvidia margins @75% instead of 40%. CAPEX/OPEX is 70%/20% hardware/power instead of customary 50%/40%.

If bubble crashes, i.e. AI demand premium evaporates, we're back at $50 hardware and $50 electricity. Likely $50 hardware and $25 electricity if hardware improves. Nvdia back to 30-40% margins, operators on old hardware stuck with stranded assets.

The key thing to understand is current racks are sold at grossly inflated premiums right now, scarcity pricing/tax. If the current AI economic model doesn't work then fundmentally that premium goes away and subsequent build outs are going to be costplus/commodity pricing = capex discounted by non trivial amounts. Any breakthroughs in hardware, i.e. TPU compute efficiency would stack opex (power) savings. Maybe by year 8, first gen of data centers are still depreciated to $80 hardware + $50 power vs new center @ $50 hardware + $25 power. That old data center is a massive write-down because it will generate less revenue than it costs to amoritize.
by array_key_first | 2025-12-02 21:04:39+00:00
Right, but if you didn't want code monkeys, you wouldn't be talking about productivity and getting your 8 hours worth.

The only people who think that engineers are actually doing a straight 8 hours of work are so delusional they're not worth mine, or anyone else's, breath.

Most of the time is spent thinking anyway. Coding is, like, 5% typing in a chair and 95% thinking about what to type. You don't need to optimize for the chair.

What's the fear with WFH? Your employees might not despise you? Your company might accidently create a culture that doesn't suck donkey dick? People might actually agree with your mission statement for once?

Is that really so bad? And all it takes is not intentionally fucking people up the ass. It's so easy, so accessible.
by skatanski | 2025-12-02 21:05:16+00:00
I agree. I wonder if it's a mix of fully remote work being popular some time ago and the amount of tech one has to know now increasing (DBs, backend, frontend, cloud, observability, security, etc.). When hiring remotely, people naturally try to find candidates who are very communicative, have a high level of ownership, and can work with or without clear requirements and without oversight. That latter set of traits is often associated with senior developers rather than juniors.
by munk-a | 2025-12-02 21:05:57+00:00
I think most people are aligned on AI being in a bubble right now with the disagreement being over which companies (if any) will weather the storm through the burst and come out profitable on the far side.

OpenAI, imo, is absolutely going to crash and burn - it has absolutely underwhelming revenue and model performance compared to others and has made astronomical expenditure commitments. It's very possible that a government bailout partially covers those debts but the chance of the company surviving the burst when it has dug such a deep hole seems slim to none.

I am genuinely surprised that generally fiscally conservative and grounded people like Jensen are still accepting any of that crash risk.
by ACCount37 | 2025-12-02 21:06:09+00:00
You can A/B smaller changes on smaller scales.

Test run SFT for helpfulness, see if the soul being there makes a difference (what a delightful thing to say!). Get a full 1.5B model trained, see if there's a difference. If you see that it helps, worth throwing it in for a larger run.

I don't think they actually used this during pre-training, but I might be wrong. Maybe they tried to do "Opus 3 but this time on purpose", or mixed some SFT data into pre-training.

In part, I see this "soul" document as an attempt to address a well known, long-standing LLM issue: insufficient self-awareness. And I mean "self-awareness" in a very mechanical, no-nonsense way: having actionable information about itself and its own capabilities.

Pre-training doesn't teach an LLM that, and the system prompt only does so much. Trying to explicitly teach an LLM about what it is and what it's supposed to do covers some of that. Not all the self-awareness we want in an LLM, but some of it.
by jasnell | 2025-12-02 21:07:09+00:00
With Bun's existing OSS license and contribution model, all contributors retain their copyright and Bun retains the license to use those contributions. An acquisition of this kind cannot change the terms under which prior contributions were made without explicit agreement from all contributors. If Bun did switch to a CLA in the future, just like with any OSS project, that would only impact future contributions made after that CLA went into effect and it depends entirely on the terms established in that hypothetical CLA.
by PrairieFire | 2025-12-02 21:07:24+00:00
Totally agree that the money doesn’t vanish. My point isn’t “buybacks literally destroy capital,” it’s about how that capital tends to get redeployed and by whom.

Buybacks concentrate cash in the hands of existing shareholders, which are already disproportionately wealthy and already heavily allocated to financial assets. A big chunk of that cash just gets recycled into more financial claims (index funds, private equity, secondary shares, etc), not into large, lumpy, real world capex that employs a bunch of electricians, heavy equipment operators, lineworkers, land surveyors, etc. AI infra does that. Even if the ultimate economic owner is the same class of people, the path the money takes is different: it has to go through chip fabs, power projects, network buildouts, construction crews, land acquisition, permitting, and so on. That’s the “leakage” I was pointing at.

To be more precise: I’m not claiming “no one would ever build anything else”, I’m saying given the current incentive structure, the realistic counterfactual for a lot of this megacap tech cash is more financialization (buybacks, M&A, sitting on balance sheets) rather than “let’s go fund housing, transit tunnels, or new aircraft.”
by kec | 2025-12-02 21:07:34+00:00
Fair use and the 4 criteria for determining if it applies to usage is literally written into the letter of the law, passed by congress in 1976: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Its squishy and specific application relies on interpretation guided by precedent, but that's true of just about everything in legal systems guided by common law.
by sigmoid10 | 2025-12-02 21:07:40+00:00
They are pretty unique. Many of them were actually developed for it. But I wouldn't even know where to begin to explain this to a layperson without knowing their level of education first. Like, how much do you know about Dyson series? Path integrals? Wick rotations? You're basically asking for a graduate level lecture on numerical methods in quantum field theories. If you really want to know the details, a quick google will probably net you some books or lecture notes.
Show HN: Visualization of Chopin 2025 competition ratings
by marcindulak | 2025-12-02 21:08:15+00:00
Interactive, browser-only timeline and heatmap views of jury ratings. Designed to support any multi-stage, juried competition, but currently includes only the 2025 Chopin Competition. Runs client-side with no external API calls.

GitHub repository: https://github.com/marcindulak/competition-rating-visualizat...
by nunobrito | 2025-12-02 21:08:40+00:00
That is the first red flaming flag, yet you dismiss it like nothing albeit so many cybersec experts point out the same thing (references you can search them on previous discussions)

The second is forgetting things like actively promoting the usage of US government developed and sponsored tech like signal and Tor.

Then let's look at that availability of source code, which for some "reason" doesn't come out. Lest but not least, don't even wonder about their financing sources and constant spamming on sites like this as if there aren't better options.

You can bot away and say none of this matters. It does matter, not everyone here is dumb and I'll keep complaining no matter how many times the other bots downvote what is obviously just another gov-sponsored operation.
by addaon | 2025-12-02 21:08:50+00:00
You can, but customers like compact self-contained units. All trade offs.

Edit: There's basically three approaches to this problem that I'm aware of. Number one is to push the cross-talk below the noise floor -- your suggestion helps with this. Number two is to do noise cancellation by measuring your cross-talk and deleting it from the signal. Number three is to make the cross-talk signal distinct from a real reflection (e.g. by modulating the pulses so that there's low correlation between an in-flight pulse and a being-fired pulse). In practice, all three work nicely together; getting the cross-talk noise below saturation allows cancellation to leave the signal in place, and reduced correlation means that the imperfections of the cancellation still get cleaned up later in the pipeline.
by GermanJablo | 2025-12-02 21:10:02+00:00
Thanks! The answer depends on what you want:

1. Do you care about resolving concurrent conflicts? That is, if two users modify the same document simultaneously (or while one is offline), is it acceptable if one of their changes is lost? If that’s not a problem, then using Dropbox or something similar is totally fine, and you don't need a CRDT or OT like DocNode at all. Technologies like Dropbox aren't designed for conflict resolution and can't be integrated with CRDT or OT protocols.

2. If you do want to resolve conflicts, you have two options. (a) Use a CRDT, which doesn’t require a server. One downside is that clients must be connected simultaneously to synchronize changes. Personally, I don’t think most people want software that behaves like that, and that’s one of the reasons I didn’t focus on building a CRDT. If you’re going to end up needing a server anyway, what’s the point? (b) Use a server, either hosted by you or by your users. The good news is that it’s extremely simple. With DocNode Sync, you can literally set it up with one line of code on the server.

That doesn't apply if you're using a CRDT with "a server as an always-present client". But in that scenario, DocNode will be more efficient.
by freediver | 2025-12-02 21:10:03+00:00
> - If it works and prints money like it should, then OpenAI is on a path to become the next Mag 7 company. All the money they raised makes sense.

Makes sense for whom? Certainly not the users. The entire purpose of ads is to change your behavior in ways that benefit someone else. In ad-based search, ads are at least visually separable (and blockable) but in a conversational AI they are indistinguishable and corrupt the entire trust relationship. When your chat "assistant" has a financial incentive to steer you toward certain products or answers every response becomes suspect. The users are no longer getting the best answer but the most profitable one as we witnessed this happen in search over last 2 decades. Not a way to build a long lasting business.
by keeda | 2025-12-02 21:10:09+00:00
Ehh, I dunno, it was really, really popular back then. I would bet that a non-trivial number of apps were built using VB by actual software engineers. Couldn't find concrete numbers but this article claims at its peak, 2/3rds of all business apps on Windows PCs were in VB: https://retool.com/visual-basic

I recall seeing inventory management systems, airline booking apps for travel agents, custom CRMs, internal LoB apps, check-in kiosks, vending machines, etc. with the tell-tale VB UI, especially the typical VB error dialog after a crash!

I messed around with several other UI toolkits of that era -- AWT, Swing, Qt, Flex/ActionScript -- and none was as productive as VB for simple apps. It was just the right amount of simplicity and development velocity for the myriad simple use-cases that were perfectly happy with rigid layouts.
by cryptonector | 2025-12-02 21:10:52+00:00
If they had put the same energy towards building tooling for an existing IDL/codec then they would have had strictly less work to do. Besides being inefficient in the use of their resources they also saddled us with 15th system (probably more like a 25th system, but you get the reference), and a poor one at that. There is really nothing much good to say about PB.
by ReptileMan | 2025-12-02 21:11:42+00:00
>. As long as the inference is not done at a lost this analogy doesn't hold.

I think that there were some article here that claimed that even inference is done at loss - and talking about per subscriber. I think it was for their 200$ subscription.

In a way we will be in a deal with it situation soon where they will just impose metered models and not subscription.
by laconicmatt | 2025-12-02 21:11:57+00:00
Location: South Carolina, US Remote: preferred Willing to relocate: possibly Technologies: Typescript/Javascript, Kotlin, Java, Elixir, Swift, C, Ruby, Ruby on Rails, React, React Native, Android/iOS development, Redis, AWS, Digital Ocean, MySQL, Postgres

Résumé/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRPNLqL8ziSIAOhAY0WD4Elp...

Email: matt @ laconic[dot]com or email in resume

Hello, I'm Matt and I'm a professional dev looking for full or part time work. I'm a published mobile app developer and game dev. Professionally, most of my work has been in mobile app development but I'm quite comfortable with both backend and frontend web dev. Looking for development work in really any kind of area as long as it's interesting.
by asa400 | 2025-12-02 21:12:03+00:00
Whenever people bring up binary formats I have to bring up Erlang External Term Format (ETF)[0].

It's the native format Erlang nodes use to serialize data to communicate with each other, but it's just a simple Type-Length-Value binary format, so anything can implement it.

It's small enough that you can create a reasonably complete and fast implementation of it for your language in an afternoon. It's self-describing, so if you can read ETF you can read any ETF message, as there are no out of band schemas. I love it.

[0] - https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/erl_ext_dist.html
by zstscrs | 2025-12-02 21:12:37+00:00
Every time I see people mention things like this in node vs bun or deno conversations I wonder if they even tried them.

>The single executable application feature currently only supports running a single embedded script using the CommonJS module system.

>Users can include assets by adding a key-path dictionary to the configuration as the assets field. At build time, Node.js would read the assets from the specified paths and bundle them into the preparation blob. In the generated executable, users can retrieve the assets using the sea.getAsset() and sea.getAssetAsBlob() APIs.

Meanwhile, here's all I need to do to get an exe out of my project right now with, assets and all:

> bun build ./bin/start.ts --compile --outfile dist/myprogram.exe

> [32ms] bundle 60 modules

> [439ms] compile dist/myprogram.exe

it detects my dynamic imports of jsons assets (language files, default configuration) and bundles them accordingly in the executable. I don't need a separate file to declare assets, declare imports, or do anything other than just run this command line. I don't need to look at the various bundlers and find one that works fine with my CLI tool and converts its ESM/TypeScript to CJS, Bun just knows what to do.

Node is death through thousand cuts compared to the various experiences offered by Bun.

Node adds quite the startup latency over Bun too and is just not too pleasant for making CLI scripts.
by frmersdog | 2025-12-02 21:13:39+00:00
I don't know if that's it. Speaking from outside the tech space: most of my office jobs since 2012 have been "doing the easy/annoying tasks that had to be done, but more senior people didn't want to 'waste time' dealing with."

So, there are two parts to this:

The first is that a lot of those tasks are non-trivial for someone who isn't a digital native (and occasionally trivial for people who are). That is to say that I often found myself doing tasks that my bosses couldn't do in a reasonable time span; they were tasks which they had ALWAYS delegated, which is another way of saying that they were tasks in which proficiency was not necessary at their level.

This leads into the second part, which is that performing these tasks did not help me advance in relevant experience at all. They were not related to higher-level duties, nor did they endear me to the people who could have introduced me to such duties. My seniors had no interest in our growth as workers; anyone who wanted to see that growth had to take it into their own hands, at which point "junior-level" jobs are only worth the paycheck.

I don't know if it's a senior problem generally, or something specific to this cohort of Boomer/Gen-X seniors. Gun-to-my-head, I would wager the latter. They give enough examples in other arenas of public life to lend credence to the notion that that they simply don't care what happens to their juniors, or to their companies after they leave, particularly if there is added hassle in caring. This is an accusation often lobbed at my own generation, to which I say, it's one of the few things our forebears actually did teach us.

Yet again, AI is just a cover for mismanagement.
by munk-a | 2025-12-02 21:13:49+00:00
As a developer - ChatGPT doesn't hold a candle compared to claude for coding related tasks and under performs for arbitrary format document parsing[1]. It still has value and can handle a lot of tasks that would amaze someone in 2020 - but it is simply falling behind and spending much more doing so.

1. It actually under performs Claude, Gemini and even some of the Grok models for accuracy with our use case of parsing PDFs and other rather arbitrarily formatted files.
by mindslight | 2025-12-02 21:14:17+00:00
I'm not really looking to litigate the larger point with you. I had really thought you were coming from a place of not liking the CFAA but interpreting it as harshly as possible (especially with that username!)

In general in this argument here and our previous argument, you're focused solely on intent to the exclusion of analyzing actual actions. You're then attributing malevolence to the intent of the individuals acting, while giving a pass to the companies (in this case Mazda) that is also operating with malicious/adversarial intent. You're missing that criminality also revolves around specific actions - in this case unauthorized access.

> people (or companies!) buying devices with software they don't like was never something CFAA was intended to address.

It most certainly addresses this. If I loaded up a PC with a remote access trojan, sold it on the used market, and then spied on the buyer, I would be looking at a CFAA prosecution. This is exactly what companies are doing with embedded spyware, yet it's not prosecuted.
by skybrian | 2025-12-02 21:14:34+00:00
That’s true of some parts of Deno’s standard libraries, but major functionality like Deno.test and Deno.serve are Deno-specific API’s.

Here are the Bun API’s:

https://bun.com/docs/runtime/bun-apis

Here are the Deno API’s:

https://docs.deno.com/api/deno/
by andersmurphy | 2025-12-02 21:15:00+00:00
> You either don't know what serializable does or trying to mislead the reader. There is zero reason to use searializable here.

If you're processing financial transactions you want your isolation level to be serialisable. As the order in which the transactions are processed matters.

> 5ms latency is unrealistic. Unless you use wifi or you database is in another datacenter.

Even with 1ms latency. Amdahl's law will still make you cap out at a theoretical 1000 TPS if you have 100% row lock contention.

> No they are not common at all. You probably invented them just to make pg look bad.

I'm confused. I invented transactions? Are you saying you don't use transactions with rollback when you use PG?
by euroderf | 2025-12-02 21:15:06+00:00
There is a lot of complexity lurking there. At a second home I have HA running on an RPi and also an Apple Homepod Mini (with Matter). I wish someone could explain to me how these two devices do (or do not) interact, and how I can get Apple Home on my iPhone to play nicely with HA both locally and (when I'm away) over Tailscale (so I can do remote operation of thermostats and a heat pump on wi-fi).

Is this the kind of scenario that I should be asking an LLM to sort out for me ?
by whizzter | 2025-12-02 21:15:08+00:00
Machine code yes (along with Spidermonkey, JSC and Nashorn), the timeframe around 2005-2010 saw the introduction of JIT'ed JS runtimes. Back then however JS was firmly single-threaded, it was only with the introduction of SharedArrayBuffer that JS really started to receive multithreading features (outside of SharedArrayBuffer and other shareable/sendable types, a runtime could opt to run stuff like WebWorkers/WebAudioWorkers in separate processes).

Early Node f.ex. had a multi-process setup built in, Node initially was about pushing the async-IO model together with a fast JS runtime.

Why Bun (and partially Deno) exists is because TypeScript helps so damn much once projects gets a tad larger, but usage with Node hot-reloading was kinda slow, multiple seconds from saving a file until your application reloads. Even mainline node nowadays has direct .ts file loading and type erasing to quicken the workflow.
by krackers | 2025-12-02 21:15:27+00:00
I was always curious about this, it's impossible to find any safety certifications or details about the lidars used by e.g. Waymo. Are we supposed to just trust that they didn't cut corners, especially given the financial incentives to convince people that lidar is necessary (because there's a notable competitor that doesn't use it).

To date most class-1 lasers have also been hidden/enclosed I think (and there is class 1M for limited medical use), so I'm not convinced that the limits for long-term daily exposure have been properly studied.

Until I see 3rd party studies otherwise, I plan to treat vehicle lidar no different than laser pointers and avoid looking directly at them. If/when cars become common enough that this is too hard to do, maybe I'll purchase NIR blocking glasses (though most ones I found have an ugly green tint, I wonder if it's possible to make the frequency cutoff sharp enough that it doesn't filter out visible reds).