MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by anthk | 2026-01-07 18:28:19+00:00
You could be surprised when Science, IT and metaphysics meet:

https://github.com/kl4yfd/timewave_z3r0

https://github.com/jasondrawdy/Omniwave

Now point that to 12th August, 2026 to see it's there's some relation. The lower the Y point = the more the 'novelty'.

It's a bit of crackpot science but that would just mean most of the humanity behaviour from genomics it's highly predictable except for some cosmetics and newer knowledge.

You can see these patterns in big human gatherings. And under bird flocks.

The more people you connect, the less individuality you'll get, as
some unique behaviour will emerge from few leaders, as if they were tied to virtual strings/chains.

Also: this is entirely crazy:

Title:Matter-wave interference with particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10000 amu

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8343

TL;DR: Apparenting separate system behaving as a single one. Like birds without colliding into themselves while flying.
by bluecalm | 2026-01-07 18:28:56+00:00
You may not like tariffs but it's not as straightforward as "customer pays".
Customers and businesses will part of it. Businesses will most likely give up some part of the margin and customers will pay a higher price.

>>The seller has an entire planet to sell to.

For a lot of goods US is responsible for 50% of profits. It was for me for a long time when I was selling software. Quick googling suggests some EU automakers make close to 50% of their profits in US as well.

US is the premium market everyone wants to sell to. There is nowhere else like that, especially for high margin goods.
by antonvs | 2026-01-07 18:29:10+00:00
> I guess closures in languages like Scheme can have multiple "methods"?

At the language implementation level, Scheme-like closures only have one operation, which is the ability to apply them to arguments and thus evaluate them. But as a couple of the other replies show, a closure's code can be implemented as a dispatcher which handles multiple methods. That's not a language feature, just user code.

I wrote the koan quoted above in 2003, a few years before Graydon Hoare started working on Rust. At the time, there weren't any "static" languages with built-in support for closures.

Even Python had only had read-only closure support for a couple of years at that point - so those closures couldn't be used to implement mutation of closed-over variables. (Python didn't get mutable closures until around 2008.) Java only got closure support in version 8 around 2014. C++ 11 got closures in 2011.

Of course you can implement dynamic-dispatching objects using closures in Rust or C++, but that's not going to be the equivalent of a statically-defined structure.
by tracker1 | 2026-01-07 18:29:23+00:00
Extra Virgin Olive Oil... a mono-unsaturated fatty acid blend that's one of the healthier minimally processed oils. Not great for medium to high heat cooking. Avocado oil has a similar nutritional profile and can tolerate a bit higher heat. If you are doing anything resembling frying or higher heat cooking you're likely better off with a more saturated fat option, tallow/lard.
by brabel | 2026-01-07 18:29:26+00:00
If you want to see what it looks like when you actually embed Datalog in your language, have a look at Flix: https://flix.dev/

(Select the "Usinag Datalog..." example in the code sample dropdown)

The Rust code looks completely "procedural"... it's like building a DOM document using `node.addElement(...)` instead of, say, writing HTML. People universally prefer the declarative alternative given the choice.
by pugworthy | 2026-01-07 18:29:31+00:00
Challenging to answer, because we're at different levels of programming. I'm Senior / Architect type with many years of experience programming, and he's an ME using code to help him with data processing and analysis.

I have a hunch if you asked which approach we took based on background, you'd think I was the one using the detailed prompt approach and him the vague.
by _DeadFred_ | 2026-01-07 18:30:05+00:00
Your last sentence:

"Oh and also, high tech unemployment is not a reason to stop the H1B or other programs. If you’re unemployed in one industry, go find another one - don’t steal from me for your protectionism."

directly contradicts the written purpose of the H-1B program.

H-1B is explicitly conditioned on labor-market protection: prevailing wage requirements, attestations that U.S. workers are not being displaced, and the idea that the visa exists only when qualified domestic labor is unavailable. “If you’re unemployed, go find another industry” does not fit with H1B and shows you are OK with and personally normalize it's abuse.

The fact that you’re such a strong defender of H-1B while rejecting its core statutory premise shows you’re arguing for something other than H-1B as it exists in law. That mismatch is itself evidence that the concerns you dismiss aren’t coming from nowhere.
by voxleone | 2026-01-07 18:30:19+00:00
I sometimes feel a peculiar resonance with these models: they catch the faintest hints of irony and return astoundingly witty remarks, almost as if they were another version of myself. Yet all of the problems, inconsistencies, and surprises that arise in human thought stem from something profoundly differen, which is our embodied experience of the world. Humans integrate sensory feedback, form goals, navigate uncertainty, and make countless micro-decisions in real time, all while reasoning causally and contextually. Cognition is active, multimodal, and adaptive; it is not merely a reflection of prior experience a continual construction of understanding.

And then there are some brilliant friends of mine, people with whom a conversation can unfold for days, rewarding me with the same rapid, incisive exchange we now associate with language models. There is, clearly, an intellectual and environmental element to it.
by ctoth | 2026-01-07 18:30:32+00:00
You'd think!

I'm here to tell you though that for especially complex plans where you say "absolutely do this every time!" or "you must test and commit! or whatever...
Well.

There's a reason that most people who love Claude Code are thinking about orchestration now. Personally my version is called Godshatter, and it's trying to apply behavior trees to coding agents.

Here's a plan that failed on me with default Claude Code last night (note the gates and explicit test callouts):

https://gist.github.com/ctoth/860cf487a48a526dc7483daae51c35...
by GMoromisato | 2026-01-07 18:30:38+00:00
I was working at Groove Networks, a tiny company in Beverly Massachusetts, when I learned that Bill Gates was dropping by. Founded by Ray Ozzie after his success with Lotus Notes, Groove had been negotiating with Microsoft to sell the company, and this was, potentially, the final step.

It was 2003, and Microsoft's next version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn, was not doing well. On top of that, Google and the rest of the internet natives were eating Microsoft's lunch, and many analysts expected the company to fade away, as IBM had done before.

Bill Gates, obviously, didn't want that to happen, and true to his nature, was looking for a technological solution. In many ways, Longhorn was fighting the last war: it invented a new graphical subsystem and a new storage system, at a time when modern apps were happily using HTML and SQL. Groove Networks had developed a peer-to-peer synchronization technology that blended online and offline so an app could have the best of both worlds. It was a true local-first architecture that was also internet native.

Gates arrived early in the morning with one or two assistants. In 2003 he was still the wealthiest person on the planet, but he carried himself like any normal engineer. One of my colleagues, who hadn't been told he was coming, only learned about it because they rode with him in the elevator. He introduced himself and made small talk. You can imagine their shock.

At the meeting, we presented our technology and our ideas for how we could fit into Microsoft's plans. Later I learned that this was a mini-product review, like Sinofsky talks about in the OP. I pitched him (somewhat half-baked) ideas about how Windows files folders could become collaborative, shared folders. He was very engaged, but thankfully polite--he didn't tell me it was "the stupidest thing he had ever heard." I suspect he was on his best behavior because he had already made up his mind to buy the company.

The highlight of the meeting, for me, was watching him and Ray (whom he'd known for a while) riff on everything around Windows, the internet, and technology in general. It was like improv, where every idea someone came up with was followed up with, "Yes, and then you can also...". You could tell Gates was engaged because he kept rocking in his chair, a classic tell we later learned.

Microsoft did ultimately buy Groove Networks, but not for the technology. I realized much later that Gates had bought Groove mostly to hire Ray. In 2006, Gates announced that he was retiring and appointing Ray Ozzie as Chief Software Architect.

At Microsoft, Ray spearheaded a project codenamed Red Dog, which the marketing folks later called "Azure". I'm convinced that Ray doesn't get enough credit for his contributions to turning Microsoft around.

Had Bill already planned all this when he visited us in 2003? Probably not, but seeing his mind work, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a little bit of an inkling. You never know.
by joecool1029 | 2026-01-07 18:30:45+00:00
Yeah I was in the minority that actually defended OneDrive but I'm facing my own issues with it recently. I'm aware of the windows default client behavior but on systems I have the storage on, I modify it to pull down everything. Bad UX on Microsoft's part but it's not related to what appears to be bigger issues under the hood.

Back in October I had issues with the Linux dlang Onedrive client deleting all the files shared with me. Unlike Microsoft, the developer actually acknowledged there could be a problem and we figured out the cause was new unintended behavior caused by an old config option, really long issue thread for it here: https://github.com/abraunegg/onedrive/issues/3475 (TL:DR it was a very niche situation unlikely to have affected anyone else, I have more concise thoughts on it in the Gentoo bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/964370 )

So that was really bad, but we were able to restore all the deleted files from her OneDrive web using its recycle bin. That leaves me with the issue I'm facing now. Some of the files which I created and put in the share she shares with me have my ownership but OneDrive doesn't recognize I created it and she can't change the permissions to share back to me. So now I have to figure out how many files are affected here and I guess copy them on her side so the new files get her ownership and share back properly to me.

I do want to say as well, those files just don't show up at all on my side in OneDrive but they DO show up in my Office apps recent list. It just refuses to let me open them. She sees them though with my ownership and both the web and windows onedrive clients throw errors if she tries to change the permissions. Absolutely maddening.
by tsimionescu | 2026-01-07 18:30:56+00:00
People lose weight, temporarily, on all sorts of diets, restricted or not. It is the nature of specific diets that they tend to reduce appetite, and simply following a diet tends to reduce snacking - by virtue of selection bias, mostly (that is, people who are successfully following a diet are by definition people who aren't overeating).

Very traditional diets also tended to include lots of foods that are both highly processed and contain both sugars and fats, like cheese or sweet nut cakes. Paleo diets are a modern invention, and have little in common with the concept of what our ancestors ate. They often have deeply anachronistic ideas, like favoring raw foods, when the use of fire has been a core part of our ancestors consumption since way before Homo Sapiens existed.
by albroland | 2026-01-07 18:30:59+00:00
I believe a lot of this expectation is that as people replace Google searches with LLMs, or even enriched LLM results pushed at the top of Google results, far less click through to the actual sources happens.

This is happening across a lot of web verticals that previously relied on excellent SEO ranking and click through performance to drive ad revenue/conversions/sales. I have direct knowledge of some fairly catastrophic metrics coming out of knowledge base businesses; it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that something like Tailwind is suffering a similar fate.
by MarkusWandel | 2026-01-07 18:31:00+00:00
The whole "integrated development" experience. Take it or leave it, but old farts like me go all the way back to poring over code on printouts since your only window into it was one file at a time in an 80x25 terminal - not terminal window, actual terminal or, by then, terminal emulator.

That does affect later habits like, for example, hating the information overload from syntax highlighting. And don't even get me started on auto-indent.

Whereas younger colleagues, whose habits were formed in the era of much more sophisticated tools, have dozens of files open in tabs and can follow, say, a "where is this defined" or "where is this driven" (this is RTL code, not normal software) in an instant. Keep in mind some oldtimers had really fancy emacs setups that could do that, and vi users had things like ctags.
by kaydub | 2026-01-07 18:31:08+00:00
With the right prompt the LLM will solve it in the first place. But this is an issue of not knowing what you don't know, so it makes it difficult to write the right prompt. One way around this is to spawn more agents with specific tasks, or to have an agent that is ONLY focused on finding patterns/code where you're reinventing the wheel.

I often have one agent/prompt where I build things but then I have another agent/prompt where their only job is to find codesmells, bad patterns, outdated libraries, and make issues or fix these problems.
by dharman246 | 2026-01-07 18:31:39+00:00
That's not moderation. That's a lack of moderation. Comments like this weren't posted by mods but by people looking for stuff to answer. A mod would definitely delete such a comment if they were notified about it. But not enough users flagged stuff and preferred to complain about being hurt instead. There's also a problem that not enough mods were present at all times to handle the volume of comments posted.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-01-07 18:31:41+00:00
> My hot take: We’re already in a recession

Personal-savings rate says we're heading into a recession, but aren't yet in one [1]. Labour-force participation, on the other hand, suggests we may be [2].

Assuming we go into another shutdown at the end of the month, none of this may be clear until well into the autumn.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
by crazygringo | 2026-01-07 18:31:48+00:00
I think I'm going to have to disagree. When people tell you something incorrect, they usually believe it's correct and that they're trying to help. So it comes across with full confidence, helpfulness, and a trustworthy attitude. Plus people often come with credentials -- PhD's, medical degrees, etc. -- so we're even more caught off-guard when they turn out to be totally and completely wrong about something.

On the other hand, LLM's are just text on a screen. There are zero of the human signals that tell us someone is confident or trustworthy or being helpful. It "feels" like any random blog post from someone I don't know. So it makes you want to verify it.
by zahlman | 2026-01-07 18:31:51+00:00
> This discussion needs a grounded definition of "toxic" then.

When I wrote about the issue on MSE (https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/394952/173477) a couple years ago I explicitly called out that the terminology is not productive. It generally seems to describe dissatisfaction with the user experience that results from a failure to meet the user's expectations; but the entire reason for the conflict is that the user's expectations are not aligned with what the existing community seeks to provide.

And yes, the ambiguity you note has been spammed all over the Internet (everywhere Stack Overflow is discussed) the entire time. Some people are upset about how things are done; others consider what is done to be inherently problematic. And you can't even clearly communicate about this. For example, someone who writes "You can tell someone that a question is not appropriate for a community without being a jerk." might have in mind "don't point people at the policy document as if they should have known better, and don't give specific interpretation as if their reading comprehension is lacking"; but might also have in mind "point people at the policy document, and give specific interpretation, because otherwise there's no way for them to know". Or it might be "say something nice, but don't close the question because that sends the wrong message inherently" (this interpretation is fundamentally misguided and fundamentally misunderstands both the purpose and consequences of question closure).

And yes, every now and then, the person making the complaint actually encountered someone who said something unambiguously nasty. For those cases, there is a flagging system and a Code of Conduct. (But most Code of Conduct violations come from new users complaining when they find out that they aren't entitled to an open, answered question. And that's bad enough that many people don't comment to explain closures specifically to avoid de-anonymizing themselves.)
by pear01 | 2026-01-07 18:31:55+00:00
I hope you're joking...

Otherwise it would suggest you think the problem is they didn't ask? When was the last time you saw a customer read a terms of service? Or better yet reject a product because of said terms once they hit that part of the customer journey?

The issue isn't about asking it's that for take your pick of reasons no one ever says no. The asking is thus pro forma and irrelevant.
by supertrope | 2026-01-07 18:31:58+00:00
As new moms tend to change their consumer purchasing habits they are coveted by advertisers. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.h... Certain cohorts and keywords are very valuable so even searching a medical condition once or clicking on a hiring ad for an in-demand job can shift ads toward that direction for a long time.
by overgard | 2026-01-07 18:31:59+00:00
Unfortunately it's pay-walled so I can't read it, I can only react to the headline. But yes, of course with "do your own research" it's "not that simple", but any student of history should know that you should have a very healthy skepticism of any official or mainstream source. For some reason we think in modernity that we've gotten everything right, and it's only in the past that the official explanations were wrong. My money is on the experts being wrong about a lot of things in this era too.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2026-01-07 18:32:08+00:00
I'm not tired of social media as a concept, but I'm certainly tired of rage bait and engagement bait. But my tiredness of those pales in comparison to people's utter inability to recognize it and react accordingly by not responding to it.

How many times do I have to see the question about whether an airplane takes off if it's on a reverse treadmill? How many times do I have to see simple math questions that test your knowledge about order-of-operations? How many videos do I need to see of downright stupid recipes (I'm looking at you, Chef Club!)? How many deliberately misleading questions (ie, "Divide by half"), pointless questions ("Can you name a US state that doesn't contain the letter 'A'?"), and always with the claim of "Only a genius can figure this out!"

Not to mention how many people can't grasp even the most obvious satire. Some people still don't know the Onion is satire.

And ever time, the comments are filled with the dumbest takes.

I miss the days when people knew not to feed the trolls.
by apparent | 2026-01-07 18:32:37+00:00
This used to be an issue for me, but it seems that in Brave it unloads tabs efficiently enough that I can have many hundreds open (on an MBA) without adverse effect. The only time I go in and clear things out, it's when I need to reboot and have to categorize/save all my incognito tabs, which are wiped out on quit.
by x187463 | 2026-01-07 18:32:43+00:00
Because, obviously, you should be spending all of your waking time thinking about LLMs, agents, and how you can integrate them into every part of your life. If you have been living properly in the age of impending-AGI, you would have already been desperately seeking more opportunities to interact with these systems. That desperation would have led you to independently discover agents and all the ways you could couple yourself to them even when away from your computer. Are you a parent stuck at home experiencing life with your kids instead of sitting at your desk? Why not escape such a hellscape by whipping out your phone and building a SaaS from your phone while your offspring annoys you with requests for attention and meaningless affection?

---

Really, this whole environment of 'coding from my phone with dozens of agents while I'm doing the laundry' feels like satire of the sorts of things we used to laugh at on Linkedin.
by robinhood | 2026-01-07 18:32:50+00:00
It was probably inevitable. Building a commercial offering (mostly templates) around code which could be considered as "commodity" is extremely hard to do. I'm glad Adam and his team have had a lot of success already with this, but for sure it was not sustainable on the long run. If you are reading this, thanks Adam for having created Tailwind. It's not for everyone, but it's for some people, and that's good enough for me. We need options, and you were a solid one of them.
by ctoth | 2026-01-07 18:33:23+00:00
I've personally been noticing this thing that Kelsey is talking about here and I don't like it one little bit. A computer should not be able to increase my blood pressure, and I should never get angry at the damn thing, and I especially don't like what this says about ... well, the whole treating your servants well thing. I'm happy at least somebody is writing about this, it's a lot more interesting of a discussion than "are these things actually useful?"
by greatgib | 2026-01-07 18:33:24+00:00
> OD didn't back up your data, it moved it to the cloud and didn't tell you.

Now I think that I understand your mistake. You think that onedrive moves the data to the cloud, and so obviously losing the cloud version makes you lose the file.

But it is not what is happening from my understanding, and here is the very dark pattern:

- The file is and stays in your computer. (Actually OneDrive doesn't know how to store more than what you have in local copy... totally miserable).

- So it is just a "copy" that is sent to the cloud.

- When you delete your files in their cloud (in the sense of getting ride of your storage there, and not only files), only then "OneDrive" actively goes to delete your files in your local disk!
by dpc_01234 | 2026-01-07 18:33:41+00:00
> We have an in-house, Rust-based proxy server. Claude is unable to contribute to it meaningfully outside

I have a great time using Claude Code in Rust projects, so I know it's not about the language exactly.

My working model is is that since LLM are basically inference/correlation based, the more you deviate from the mainstream corpus of training data, the more confused LLM gets. Because LLM doesn't "understand" anything. But if it was trained on a lot of things kind of like the problem, it can match the patterns just fine, and it can generalize over a lot layers, including programming languages.

Also I've noticed that it can get confused about stupid stuff. E.g. I had two different things named kind of the same in two parts of the codebase, and it would constantly stumble on conflating them. Changing the name in the codebase immediately improved it.

So yeah, we've got another potentially powerful tool that requires understanding how it works under the hood to be useful. Kind of like git.