MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ako | 2025-12-18 19:02:29+00:00
Skills don’t solve the problem if you think an llm should know everything. But if you see LLMs mostly as a text plan-do-check-act machine that can process input text, generate output text, and can create plans how to create more knowledge and validate the output, without knowing everything upfront, skills are perfectly fine solution.

The value of standardizing skills is that the skills you define work with any agentic tool. Doesn't matter how simple they are, if they dont work easily, they have no use.

You need a practical and efficient way to give the llm your context. Just like every organization has its own standards, best practices, architectures that should be documented, as new developers do not know this upfront, LLMs also need your context.

An llm is not an all knowing brain, but it’s a plan-do-check-act text processing machine.
by core-utility | 2025-12-18 19:02:48+00:00
Also, vibe coding has really become a skill in itself. Does it allow the average non-programmer to go to production easily (and likely have bugs/flaws)? Yes. But as someone who used to be a programmer and just fell out of skill with all of it, I've found that what I do still have is a keen sniff test for good vs bad, and can guide the direction and architecture with proper planning.

Garbage in, garbage out still applies.
by miguelxt | 2025-12-18 19:03:20+00:00
Cities that have almost completely banned Airbnb (e.g.: NYC) have not seen any improvement on affordability. What's next?

Housing and rent are already heavily regulated in Spain. Some regulations and side effects of those regulations:

* Minimum contract length of 5 years. * Maximum increase of rental per year regulated to 2/3% (even during high inflation years). * It can take years to evict a non-paying tenant. If there are children in the apartment, it's even harder. * Even if the tenant is not paying, you, the landlord, have to keep paying the utilities, because if you stop paying, you'll be charged with "coacciones". * If the landlord is not a person but a company, regulation is even harder. * In some cities like Barcelona, regulation goes beyond. Maximum prices set by the local government, seasonal contracts banned, and even room rentals regulated. * And all that is not going into detail of the "Okupa" problem.
by psyopsy | 2025-12-18 19:03:34+00:00
When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in interests based on sex. And those carry over into occupation preferences. Just one more recent study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812...

Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research.

Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.
by Capricorn2481 | 2025-12-18 19:03:44+00:00
It's not really the same. Casey is suggesting people that don't spend 10 years crafting everything from scratch are somehow "lesser than." The user you're replying to is pointing out that Casey has set a completely arbitrary rule for game quality that conveniently leaves out his inability to ship something, and that's funny.

We're not saying games taking longer than a few years are failures, we're saying good games can encompass both approaches. But Casey, and his followers, are doing purity tests to feel good about themselves.

And this is assuming the games they ship are even good or noticeable to the user. I don't much care for Braid or The Witness, and I don't want my favorite dev studios to suddenly write everything from scratch every time. I would have a lot less fun things to play.
by renewiltord | 2025-12-18 19:03:50+00:00
It is good that there are lessons like this in other lands. Their millions will thirst so that we can see what not to do.

Rural Californians put up signs that say we’re “wasting most of the water in the river” by which they mean our policy of allowing the river to flow into the ocean.

We should look to places with less intelligent geoengineering to see what would happen if we were so foolish. Their combination of resourcefulness and low-IQ will show us what happens when we prioritize extraction alone.
by vibrio | 2025-12-18 19:03:56+00:00
also, Elephants have a much higher copy number of a gene called p53/ It codes a protein that acts to force suicide in cells that have damaged DNA (think from UV light, cigarette smoke, age, etc). In cancer this is a common 'early' mutation that allows collection of further mutation and progession towards cancer. In having many more copies of p53, it makes it less likely the p53 function will be eliminated
by koakuma-chan | 2025-12-18 19:04:26+00:00
Read my reply to sibling comment. To my knowledge, Claude Code is at most marginally better than Cursor, and it's mostly the model that matters. Not saying there is no room for improvement on the tooling side, but no one seems to have come up with anything so far. Let me know which killer features Claude Code has, I would be happy to learn.
by asadotzler | 2025-12-18 19:04:29+00:00
IF it happens to a high enough profile person that we can all hear about it, it's certainly happening to far more not high profile people we never hear from. No one wants absolute certainty. We want less corporate fuckery.The scale of the challenge is not an issue for companies worth trillions of dollars except that they don't want to spend a meaningful part of those trillions to deal with the challenge.
by AuthAuth | 2025-12-18 19:05:00+00:00
I'm glad to see some mozilla employees standing their base in the comments. That guy trying to make the point that Mozilla was wasting resources chasing trend only for an employee to say it was a few people checking it out while 1000 people continued work on the normal stuff is nice to see.

The non mozilla people in that thread are so petty. Maybe it'd be better to have them go use another browser and stop dragging down firefox's reputation.
by hiAndrewQuinn | 2025-12-18 19:05:05+00:00
I'm moving into a cybersecurity-focused role, and I for one would be very interested in this. A vetting process makes total sense, but complete lack of access seems like a market inefficiency in the making that the one area where we can't reliably get the frontier models to assist us in pentesting our own stuff without a lot of hedging.
by Trasmatta | 2025-12-18 19:05:06+00:00
I've watched enough hours of his streams to know that this is NOT a reductive take. Blow is one of the most arrogant developers and game designers, and believes that nearly everyone else is an idiot.

He's somewhat Musk adjacent in his need to be viewed as smart (but I guess he does so least have way more programming chops than Musk, so I'll give him that).
by newsoftheday | 2025-12-18 19:05:12+00:00
Testing must cover all cases else a 10 LOC LLM created PR is inherently more dangerous than a human 100 LOC PR because the LLM will likely also have written the test cases and it will try to make it all balance out with all passing; instead of making sure the test cases actually cover everything with the type of logic a human would apply.
by wtallis | 2025-12-18 19:05:18+00:00
Mozilla has a recurring problem with being unable to provide the simple, obvious right answer.

When they re-wrote Firefox for Android, they were unable to give the simple, obvious answer to the effect of "yes, we understand extensions are a core feature of our browser and we plan to fully support extensions on Fenix and won't consider it done until we do". Instead, they talked about whitelisting a handful of extensions, and took three years from shipping Fenix as stable before they had a broad open extension ecosystem up and running again.

Earlier this year Mozilla couldn't provide the simple, obvious response of "we will never sell your personal information". Instead, they tried to make excuses about not agreeing with California's definition of "selling personal information".

A few days ago, we find out that their new CEO can't clearly and emphatically say "we would never take money to break ad blockers, because that goes against everything we stand for".

Now, they seemingly can't even realize that having a "kill switch" calls into doubt whether they actually know what "opt-in" means.

Even when they're trying to do the right thing, they're strangely afraid to commit to doing the right thing when it comes to specifics. They won't say "never" even when it should be easy.
by kouru225 | 2025-12-18 19:05:30+00:00
One thing I genuinely hate about modern tech is that it punishes you for planning ahead. I purposely spent time getting a password manager and implementing 2fa protocols that would both speed up my time and keep me safe. Then suddenly every company decided it was time to go passwordless or do passkeys and all my work (researching different products, setting each one up, making sure hey work on all my devices, etc etc) suddenly goes down the drain
by jdelman | 2025-12-18 19:06:06+00:00
When you sign up for an Apple account, you aren't "buying" anything. In fact there is a set of terms & conditions you agree to when signing up which most likely includes language stating that your account can be closed with the discretion of the platform owner. What we need isn't a shift from "buying" to "renting", but instead something akin to a Consumer Bill of Rights that states that you are entitled to appeal account closure if you are in good standing and can prove as much.
by maccard | 2025-12-18 19:06:40+00:00
There’s a couple of providers that give you that kind of abstraction. Playfab is _pretty close_ but it’s fairly slow to ramp up and down. There is/was multiplay - they’ve had some changes recently and I’m not sure what their situation is right now. There’s also stuff like Hathora (they’re great but expensive).

At a previous job, we used azure container apps - it’s what you _want_ fargate to be. AIUI, Google Cloud Run is pretty much the same deal but I’ve no experience with it. I’ve considered deploying them as lambdas in the past depending on session length too…
Show HN: Astro 5 and TypeScript production ready GitHub pages template
by chiengineer | 2025-12-18 19:06:54+00:00
Made with vs code + github copilot pro + subscription and lots of patience

I found as of 2025 there are almost zero good templates for github pages that have easy setup or configuration

And thats why i made this

Has a section for demo animations which I cant believe I got working on a static site
by jonahbenton | 2025-12-18 19:07:06+00:00
To my eyes skills disappear, MCP and agent definitions do not.

You can have the most capable human available to you, a supreme executive assistant. You still have to convey your intent and needs to them, your preferences, etc, with as high a degree of specificity as necessary.

And you need to provide them with access and mechanisms to do things on your behalf.

Agentic definitions are the former, and they will evolve and grow. I like the metaphor of deal terms in financial contracts- benchmarkers document billions of these now. The "deal terms" governing the work any given entity does for you will be rich and bespoke and specific, like any valuable relationship. Even if the agent is learning about you, your governance is still needed.

MCP is the latter. It is the protocol by which a thing does things for you. It will get extensions. Skill-like directives and instructions will get delivered over it.

Skills themselves are near term scaffold that will soon disappear.
by sowbug | 2025-12-18 19:07:08+00:00
Since they’re robots, automated tests and manual tests are effectively the same thing.

I'd buttress this statement with a nuance. Automated tests typically run in their entirety, usually by a well-known command like cargo test or at least by the CI tools. Manual tests are often skipped because the test seems to be far away from the code being changed.

My all-time favorite team had a rule that your code didn't exist if it didn't have automated tests to "defend" it. If it didn't, it was OK, or at least not surprising, for someone else to break or refactor it out of existence (not maliciously, of course).
by yoavm | 2025-12-18 19:07:16+00:00
I agree, but there's nothing more frustrating than another niche user group imagining that the reason for this failure is Mozilla lacking to address their obscure requests, while Mozilla's real goal is to create a browser for everyone. The truth is that this goal is borderline impossible, and all these double standards (can't count the times I've heard "I'm tired of Firefox, moving to Chrome!") surely aren't helping.
by golemotron | 2025-12-18 19:07:23+00:00
I'm in the conserving camp. It's more truthful than the narrativization that accompanies attempts to restore. We should remember that we all had a reptilian vision of dinosaurs for decades (centuries?) before the latest feathered view. We would have been better with neither. Just display the bones: what we have. Everything else burdens the public with guesses.
by zhyder | 2025-12-18 19:07:34+00:00
"Almost anyone can prompt an LLM to generate a thousand-line patch and submit it for code review. That’s no longer valuable. What’s valuable is contributing code that is proven to work."

I'd go further: what's valuable is code review. So review the AI agent's code yourself first, ensuring not only that it's proven to work, but also that it's good quality (across various dimensions but most importantly in maintainability in future). If you're already overwhelmed by that thousand-line patch, try to create a hundred-line patch that accomplishes the same task.

I expect code review tools to also rapidly change, as lines of code written per person dramatically increase. Any good new tools already?
by cyberax | 2025-12-18 19:08:31+00:00
Your daily reminder that urbanism leads only to more misery. Dense cities will never have cheaper housing. And it will only get worse and worse as the density continues to grow.

And we know that the misery won out when people pose it like this:

> If you can't afford a home up to our standards, better that you should be homeless?

The third option is to LIVE IN CHEAPER PLACES. The US has 1.1 housing units per household. We literally have more homes than families! And this doesn't change much if we assume that illegal immigrants are undercounted.

The whole housing policy must focus on making MORE locations feasible, not trying to strangle the democracy with bike lanes.
by agotterer | 2025-12-18 19:08:50+00:00
Honestly, I can’t think of anything I would have done differently. Each stage of our growth came with some challenges and lessons. I think we did a pretty good job of internalizing and adapting. We definitely made some mistakes along the way, but nothing I regret doing and wouldn’t do again. Every mistake and lesson taught us something.

Feel free to email me if you run into any challenges. We might have already been through it!
by butz | 2025-12-18 19:08:59+00:00
Firefox should release a separate build - "base", "core", "classic" - clearly, I am not a marketing person, but idea behind it, that this is only a browser without any extra features added. No "AI", no studies, no account sync. Only bare minimum browser, that allows user to do their internet things and, if they ever desire, will install all extra bells and whistles as extensions. No need to agree to any EULA either (remember, that it was added to Firefox?). And, the best part, all existing users will still keep using the same old Firefox version, no surprises for them. Now, I assume that someone will tell me, that this version already exists and is called ESR :)
by enugu | 2025-12-18 19:09:06+00:00
There is a purely geometric reason for why elliptic curves have group structure. A geometric shape which is also a group, such that the group operations are smooth maps, has to be homogeneous - it has to look the same from every point[1]. Not just that, if you have a vector at some point, there is a natural way to transport it to every other point on the shape. The only surface (curves over complex numbers are really 2d surfaces) which obeys this property is the torus[2].

[1] Why should the homogeneous property be true? Because in a group, multiplication by g, pushes the identity e to g. M_g(e)=g where. This is a continuous isomorphism of the shape. So the shape looks the same at g as it looks at a (a neigbhourhood of g looks the same as neighbourhood of e). So an 'X' or 'Y' shapes cant be groups, as there are points which are locally unique, but 'O' shape can be a group. Moreover, M_g can also push a fixed non-zero vector v at e to a vector v_g at g.

[2] The Euler characteristic of the torus is 0. A non-zero vector field has index 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9%E2%80%93Hopf_the... See the special case of the sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem
by dkdcio | 2025-12-18 19:09:31+00:00
it’s the “agentic harness” — they have shipped tons of great features for the DevEx, but it’s the combination of better models (Sonnet 4.5 1M, now Opus 4.5) and the “prompting”/harness that improves how it actually performs

again I’m not saying Codex is worse, they’re just different and claiming the only one you actively use is the best is a stretch

edit: also FWIW, I initially dismissed Claude Code at launch, then loved Codex when it released. never really liked Cursor. now I primarily use Claude Code given I found Codex slow and less “reliable” in a sense, but I try to try all 3 and keep up with the changes (it is hard)
by quesera | 2025-12-18 19:09:35+00:00
It's an anti-fraud measure.

Scammers will sniff card info before activation, and poll the balance check site to see when the card is activated. They will then use the card to get merchandise which they ship to another market and sell for ~50-60% of retail value.

Like solar power, money laundering is inefficient, but it's valuable when the source material is zero-cost.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-12-18 19:09:35+00:00
> I can tell you that neo clouds (generally) do not see security as a high priority—or often, even their responsibility.

AWS explicitly spells this out in their Shared Responsibility Model page [0]

It is not your cloud provider's responsibility to protect you if you run outdated and vulnerable software. It's not their responsibility to prevent crypto-miners from running on your instances. It's not even their responsibility to run a firewall, though the major players at least offer it in some form (ie, AWS Security Groups and ACL).

All of that is on the customer. The provider should guarantee the security of the cloud. The customer is responsible for security in the cloud.

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-mode...
by technusm1 | 2025-12-18 19:09:36+00:00
Making this cross-platform is definitely a goal I wanna work on, but I lack knowledge of desktop app development on Windows and Linux.

I'm glad you think the app is cheap. Honestly I think the pricing is decent for the current set of features. I might revisit the price if I sneak in more features worthy of a higher price tag, but for now, it's good enough.
by unbelievably | 2025-12-18 19:09:39+00:00
Why does this need to be a standard in the first place. This isn't DDR5 lol, it's literally just politely asking the model to remember some short descriptions and read a corresponding file when it thinks appropriate. I feel like these abstractions are supposed to make Claude sound more sophisticated because WOW now we can give the guy new skills! But really they're just obfuscating the "data as code" aspect of LLMs which is their true power (and vulnerability ofc).
by jghn | 2025-12-18 19:09:46+00:00
Am old enough that this was status quo for part of my career, and have also been in some groups that did this as a rejection of modern code review techniques.

There are pros & cons to both sides. As you point out it's quite expensive in terms of time to do the in person style. Getting several people together is a big hassle. I've found that the code reviews themselves, and what people get out of them, are wildly different though. In person code reviews have been much more holistic in my experience, sometimes bordering on bigger picture planning. And much better as a learning tool for other people involved. Whereas the diff style online code review tends to be more focused on the immediate concerns.

There's not a right or wrong answer between those tradeoffs, but people need to realize they're not the same thing.
by jbcranshaw | 2025-12-18 19:09:49+00:00
tldr; For fifty years, pretyt much every major approach to measuring developer productivity has eventually been disavowed by its own creators. Lines of code, story points, velocity. Tom DeMarco wrote "you can't control what you can't measure" in 1982 and publicly retracted it in 2009. AI has made the problem worse and, weirdly, might also be the way out.
by ElevenLathe | 2025-12-18 19:09:54+00:00
I would say it should belong to voters (or "society", or "the people", or whatever formula you want to use to express it), in a functioning society. Unfortunately, we're not in a functioning society, and it doesn't. On the other hand, property is socially constructed, so this political economy can be changed, though how exactly is left as an exercise to the reader -- I don't a foolproof answer.
by cthalupa | 2025-12-18 19:10:16+00:00
You intentionally made disparaging remarks about someone and attempted to tie them having an opinion about a technology to that of people who have a vested financial interest in said technology.

You didn't engage at all on the substance of their comment - that they find AI useful for doing code reviews - and instead made a comment that was nothing but condescension.

All of that is separate from whether or not AI is overhyped or anything else - it being valuable for PRs could be true while it is also overhyped. If true, that could be some of the nuance you seem to be so concerned about us lacking.
by tzcnt | 2025-12-18 19:10:39+00:00
I found them quite boring since they are all repetitions on the same theme - just drawing lines on a square. It could have been a mobile game. The world doesn't feel connected to the puzzles, and the exploration aspect of it could have been a completely separate game. It feels like two games glued together, which is IMO not a good design.

It's also not a game that's very demanding from a technical performance perspective, and really has very limited numbers of active entities / animations, so why should I care about his opinions on game architecture or anything else?
by justjake | 2025-12-18 19:11:19+00:00
Jake from Railway here

> And my hosting provider is saying, "you are not allowed to push out your urgent fix, because we see that your app contains a far less urgent problem." There is no button that says "I understand, proceed anyway." Railway knows best.

We rolled this out quickly because of the React/NextJS CVE. I think this is actually a really good suggestion and we can look into it! Thank you for the thoughtful blogpost, and I'm sorry we let you down. We will work hard to re-earn your trust.
by hrdwdmrbl | 2025-12-18 19:11:32+00:00
Unfortunately, at the moment, for normal people, the legal system is our only option.

I am not a lawyer, but I have done this multiple times:

Read the T&C and search for "dispute" or "dispute resolution". Look for what you're supposed to do when you have a dispute. Follow the steps as outlined. Corporate lawyers generally take things seriously.
by WorldMaker | 2025-12-18 19:11:41+00:00
On the subject of (1) I wonder if a complication in this specific case might be a variant of the clbuttic Scunthorpe problem that the last name on the account that redeemed a bad gift card included the word "Butt" and an algorithm or underpaid reviewer (or both) flagged it also as a suspiciously named account.

(2) and (3) remain great questions without enough good answers.