MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by rdedev | 2026-01-07 01:01:57+00:00
I decided to vibe code something myself last week at work. I've been wanting to create a poc that involves a coding agent create custom bokeh plots that a user can interact with and ask follow up questions. All this had to be served using a holoview panel library

At work I only have access to calude using the GitHub copilot integration so this could be the cause of my problems. Claude was able to get slthe first iteration up pretty quick. At that stage the app could create a plot and you could interact with it and ask follow up questions.

Then I asked it to extend the app so that it could generate multiple plots and the user could interact with all of them one at a time. It made a bunch of changes but the feature was never implemented. I asked it to do again but got the same outcome. I completely accept the fact that it could just be all because I am using vscode copilot or my promoting skills are not good but the LLM got 70% of the way there and then completely failed
by fragmede | 2026-01-07 01:02:12+00:00
So much this. Do we program by writing reams of code and never running the compiler until it's all written and then judging the programmer as terrible when it doesn't compile? Or do we write code by hand incrementally and compile and test as we go along? So why would do we think having the AI do that and fail is setting it up for success? If I wrote code on a whiteboard and was judged for making syntax errors, I'd never have gotten a job. Give the AI the tools it needs to succeed, just like you would for a human.
by anonzzzies | 2026-01-07 01:02:15+00:00
I had that same setup and it was great, except Jellyfin. It is ok when it works; clunky but OK, however when something goes wrong with jellyfin, it is really goes bad. Sqlite corrupted, XML files corrupted, basically having to fresh reinstall. Now with Claude code, i just made my own. Works much better, faster, no such issues and more importantly; tailored to me, so not clunky to me even though it might be for others.
by NSPG911 | 2026-01-07 01:02:35+00:00
> Opus 4.5 ate theough my Copilot quota last month

Sure, Copilot charges 3x tokens for using Opus 4.5, but, how were you still able to use up half the allocated tokens not even one week into January?

I thought using up 50% was mad for me (inline completions + opencode), that's even worse
by xp84 | 2026-01-07 01:03:08+00:00
I happened to see a video yesterday, unsourced though, which said that for cars that fetch a high premium overseas, exporters hire "straw buyers" to buy the cars and register them, then immediately take them to the port to be exported.

So, those seem like they'd be pretty good ones to use, as the straw buyer would certainly not report it as stolen. Though I bet they don't renew the tags, so you might owe a couple years of back registration depending on how old the 'source' car is.
by blibble | 2026-01-07 01:03:17+00:00
all of those influencer aiphobes combined, must make as much as what, maybe one FAANG employee's TC?

personally, I certainly stand to lose a good chunk of my pension when the bubble pops

hopefully the world economy won't collapse at the same time

> because teaching people how NOT to use AI won't provide those customers as much value as teaching them how to use it.

it's a short term gain, with a long term loss, for yourself, your employer, and for our society

digital meth

and we both know what the US version of capitalism prioritises
by soraminazuki | 2026-01-07 01:03:45+00:00
https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=2459

> It's actually funny to go through these slides, August 3rd 2010, because the slides are like, because there's no way Oracle would be so stupid as to close the operating system. So like, that's obviously going to stay open and ... we're not going to be a fork, ... which I actually had misgivings about because I didn't necessarily want us to have to merge what was going on upstream when we couldn't control it. But that was what it was.

> Well, this was actually resolved for us, and it was resolved for us in what I think is the one of the most shameful moments in the history of Open Source. ... On Friday August 13th 2010, this memo was sent out to folks internally at Sun, and in particular, in this memo "we will no longer distribute source code for the entirety of the OpenSolaris operating system or the Solaris operating system in real time." This is absolutely shameful. And it is shameful because for so many who worked so hard to open up this system, and not just for the folks inside of Sun. The reason that this is shameful, the reason that this is reprehensible is because a social contract was formed with the community. And there are folks, including folks in this room, that had source code that was contributed back under that copyright agreement under that copyright assignment and that source code was now being made proprietary. That is reprehensible. That is shitting in the pool of open source and it is disgusting corporate behavior. And sadly, it is behavior like this that forces the rest of us to need to be cynical and suspicious. This is a body blow for open source. And the worst thing was, not only was it shameful — it was cowardly. Because this was never publicly announced. Oracle has not publicly announced once — once — that they are stopping contributions to Open Solaris. They simply silently stopped. Now I get that the lawnmower doesn't just understand why that's a big deal. Okay, I get that. But you know what, we're not all lawnmowers and that's disgusting. It's cowardly behavior. And I have never been so embarrassed of my former colleagues than I was when I saw that mail. Humiliated.

> And as it turns out it was a lie as it also says in there, "... following full releases of our Enterprise Solaris operating system, ... source license and code is going to be made available." Yeah well, Solaris 11 was shipped on November 9th 2011, and I don't see the goddamn source code. So now admittedly, in Oracle's defense, they didn't lie to us because they didn't tell us anything, right. They lied to themselves.
by zamadatix | 2026-01-07 01:04:33+00:00
Happily, here's one from Delta as I described above https://i.imgur.com/wwYQXy1.png. Sadly (for me, at least), I've never flown above "First" on such a configuration from Delta though :). Like you had noted, they call it 4 cabin classes... but the economy classes ("Main" & "Comfort") are both treated as a single cabin in terms of service and the difference in economy seats is an inch or two of leg room. So it's really a 3 cabin of: business, first, economy.

Again, hbosch said ATL<->SFO... and you aren't going to be flying Air France or Japan Airlines for that route. My list, as far as I'm aware, was exhaustive for that route. It was not a cherry picked search of airlines which do it that way or global claim of what all other airlines do, only a response to the particular claim. On other routes/airlines the statement could, or rather "would", certainly have been true. Honestly, I think those airlines have it the right way around, but, having flown the exact route and the same airlines internationally, it did not match my experience for the route - which agreed with the labeling for all airlines for that route according to the links above. Unless, perhaps I'm missing that American or similar does actually have a ATL<->SFO to be compared with?
by bennydog224 | 2026-01-07 01:04:43+00:00
Don't want to discredit Opus at all, it's easy at directed tasks but it's not the silver bullet yet.

It is best in its class, but trips up frequently with complicated engineering tasks involving dynamic variables. Think: Browser page loading, designing for a system where it will "forget" to account for race conditions, etc.

Still, this gets me very excited for the next generation of models from Anthropic for heavy tasks.
by rgoulter | 2026-01-07 01:04:52+00:00
Sure, for a lowest-common-denominator, GUIs and websites will let you use a mouse. That's great for if you want to use a tool & don't want to take time to get familiar with it.

There are some things which are inherent to GUI or CLI interfaces.. but, overall, nothing ensures a TUI will be good, and nothing prevents a GUI from providing a good interface. -- The distinctions are generally going to be program specific.

So e.g. using openlens (GUI) vs k9s (TUI) vs kubectl (CLI).
by ehnto | 2026-01-07 01:04:57+00:00
> The ability to satisfy needs now and pay for them in the future is why you can have a house

The housing market has been greatly influenced by the ability to loan vast sums for housing, and without that we would have a very different housing market but we would still have one.

I think banks should lend but it's probably fair that we have controls on lending, and I think we should probably tighten them up especially around housing.
by devinbhushan | 2026-01-07 01:05:07+00:00
Squint | Onsite, San Francisco | Squint is the leading manufacturing intelligence platform. We're leveraging the latest in AI, spatial, and hardware capabilities to accelerate human potential and spark the next industrial revolution.

What makes Squint special?

- Our customers include some of the most iconic manufacturing brands across Food and Beverage, Automotive, and Consumer Package Goods. Work here literally transforms how the world around you is made.

- We're not replacing people with AI, we're up-leveling them; capturing insights, turbocharging workflows on the factory floor, and making every operator an expert.

- We're bringing consumer-grade quality to enterprise software, combining cutting-edge tech with deep customer empathy to build a product that's powerful, magical, and deeply loved by our users.

High Priority Open Roles:

- Applied AI Engineer

- Software Engineer, Backend Infrastructure

- Senior GTM Recruiter

- Senior Accounting Manager

- Director of Enterprise Sales, Energy Sector

- Customer Strategy Partner

- Strategic Enterprise Account Executive

- Senior Sales Engineer

View full list of roles and apply here: https://jobs.ashbyhq.com/squint.ai?utm_source=Hackernews
by theshrike79 | 2026-01-07 01:05:34+00:00
I've said this multiple times:

This is why you use this AI bubble (it IS a bubble) to use the VC-funded AI models for dirt cheap prices and CREATE tools for yourself.

Need a very specific linter? AI can do it. Need a complex Roslyn analyser? AI. Any kind of scripting or automation that you run on your own machine. AI.

None of that will go away or suddenly stop working when the bubble bursts.

Within just the last 6 months I've built so many little utilities to speed up my work (and personal life) it's completely bonkers. Most went from "hmm, might be cool to..." to a good-enough script/program in an evening while doing chores.

Even better, start getting the feel for local models. Current gen home hardware is getting good enough and the local models smart enough so you can, with the correct tooling, use them for suprisingly many things.
by JadeNB | 2026-01-07 01:05:40+00:00
> [1] I once worked on a system that kept logs of certain types of query so it could display a guess of how long things were going to take and a progress bar to go with it, but this was actually more irritating to the users than no progress display as it would sometime jump from a few % directly to done or sit at 99% for ages (in the end the overly complicated guessing method was replaced by a simple spinner).

In the Tiger era, the OS X start-up progress bar worked this way—it kept track of how long boot-ups would take, and then displayed its best guess based on that.
by rectang | 2026-01-07 01:06:04+00:00
The human still has to manage complexity. A properly modularized and maintainable code base is much easier for the LLM to operate on — but the LLM has difficulty keeping the code base in that state without strong guidance.

Putting “Make minimal changes” in my standard prompt helped a lot with the tendency of basically all agents to make too many changes at once. With that addition it became possible to direct the LLM to make something similar to the logical progression of commits I would have made anyway, but now don’t have to work as hard at crafting.

Most of the hype merchants avoid the topic of maintainability because they’re playing to non-technical management skeptical of the importance of engineering fundamentals. But everything I’ve experienced so far working with LLMs screams that the fundamentals are more important than ever.
by csb6 | 2026-01-07 01:07:24+00:00
What is stopping him from simply militarily occupying Greenland indefinitely? He could just fabricate a reason (“national security”, “drugs”, etc.) and send troops. Wouldn’t need to involve Congress for that kind of military action, and the Supreme Court has said that all other branches of government should defer to the executive’s judgment on foreign policy. And there is zero chance a Republican House would impeach him for doing that.
by greenavocado | 2026-01-07 01:08:07+00:00
I see he has airborne patches in those pics. My friend that served in Afghanistan developed two distinct and simultaneous brain tumors (ultra rare). I suspect it was the burn pits. He told me how he was burning hundreds of iPads and everything electronic in open pits there as they were pulling out and that the smoke screwed him up (he told me shortly after getting back). Then ten years later he's diagnosed with the brain tumors (now).
by mothballed | 2026-01-07 01:08:15+00:00
Non-responsive paragraph.

You've attacked what could interchangeably be dollar or gold asking what it might buy or store, failing to recognize I was measuring relative stability rather than absolute stability.

The dollar has lost over 95% of its value since inception of the federal reserve (at which time dollars nature changed significantly) in 1913 against some imperfect measures of CPI. That gives you a 20x difference over time, downward. Gold has not perform nearly that bad at price stability.

We could go back further than that when the dollar was a lot more stable... but at that time dollar was backed by gold and there wasn't (mostly) a central bank nor gold possession bans that let them mess with the price quite in the same way they did later.
by Fnoord | 2026-01-07 01:09:02+00:00
Utopia [1] [2] by (back then) Mehul Patel's Swirve. Apparently it is still going on. Same with NationStates! [3] [4] Max Barry's book Jennifer Government is also decent.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20000816192919/http://games.swir...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(1998_video_game)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationStates

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20021208105428if_/http://www.nat...
by 0928374082 | 2026-01-07 01:09:25+00:00
What makes you think Article 5 requires consensus?

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...

> if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ... will assist the Party ... attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,

"Each" and "individually" imply to me that even if the US decides they could meet their Art 5 obligation by sending a strongly worded letter to themselves, every other NATO member, invoking the right of collective self-defence, should forthwith assist DK with armed force.
by rchaud | 2026-01-07 01:09:33+00:00
people have never posted weird shit on Instagram. Pinterest maybe, but not Instagram. I have been on it since the early days. It is either milquetoast "pics from my vacation" or influencer garbage. Even normal people do not post there anymore because Meta has flooded the feeds with a 100:1 ratio of ads and influencer material relative to friends' posts.
by sfink | 2026-01-07 01:09:58+00:00
(I haven't used AI much, so feel free to ignore me.)

This is one thing I've tried using it for, and I've found this to be very, very tricky. At first glance, it seems unbelievably good. The comments read well, they seem correct, and they even include some very non-obvious information.

But almost every time I sit down and really think about a comment that includes any of that more complex analysis, I end up discarding it. Often, it's right but it's missing the point, in a way that will lead a reader astray. It's subtle and I really ought to dig up an example, but I'm unable to find the session I'm thinking about.

This was with ChatGPT 5, fwiw. It's totally possible that other models do better. (Or even newer ChatGPT; this was very early on in 5.)

Code review is similar. It comes up with clever chains of reasoning for why something is problematic, and initially convinces me. But when I dig into it, the review comment ends up not applying.

It could also be the specific codebase I'm using this on? (It's the SpiderMonkey source.)
by theshrike79 | 2026-01-07 01:09:59+00:00
It's like working with humans:

1) define problem
2) split problem into small independently verifiable tasks
3) implement tasks one by one, verify with tools

With humans 1) is the spec, 2) is the Jira or whatever tasks

With an LLM usually 1) is just a markdown file, 2) is a markdown checklist, Github issues (which Claude can use with the `gh` cli) and every loop of 3 gets a fresh context, maybe the spec from step 1 and the relevant task information from 2

I haven't ran into context issues in a LONG time, and if I have it's usually been either intentional (it's a problem where compacting wont' hurt) or an error on my part.
by LargoLasskhyfv | 2026-01-07 01:10:52+00:00
Have you tried anything with https://codeberg.org/ikawrakow/illama

https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp and their 4Bit-quants?

Or maybe even Microsofts Bitnet? https://github.com/microsoft/BitNet

https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp/pull/337

https://huggingface.co/microsoft/bitnet-b1.58-2B-4T-gguf ?

That would be an interesting comparison for running local LLMs on such low-end/edge-devices. Or common office machines with only iGPU.
by bluegatty | 2026-01-07 01:11:26+00:00
"hegemoney" good lord.

"dominate financially through new technologies and better policy."

Sorry, but nobody but a small number of crazy US imperialists wants that.

These people are extremely dangerous - they are not Eisenhower or Reagan types even if they claim the mantle, they're Imperialists who're living in the bosom of the peace dividend created by Eisenhower post WW2 order, and assuming that the 'prosperity of the free world' is entirely their creation and also theirs to own.

Eisenhower aka post WW2 people etc. wanted a world that included all nations where one was not above the other. He was definitely a bit missionary, wanting to 'spread the revolution' but he was def. not classically imperialist. Reagan was mostly that as well, and very genteel in nature. Go back and watch him talk, he was a pretty dignified guy.

This 'hegemoney' guy (and new class of people like him) are the essence of the Neo American Imperialist movement - aka presuming that 'might makes right' this was the realpolik structure of the international sitaution all along, but it was not.

The total lack of self awareness of these people extends right to the fact that they assume that anyone wants to be a part of their game, they can't fathom why people are siding with China outright, or viewing China/US with moral ambiguity.

It's 'Captain America' aka authentic, legitimate US leadership of a relatively free world that made the West admirable, and put the US at the centre of that, with all of the Mag 7 globally dominant companies etc. It's how we can win the moral argument (more or less) vis-a-vis Russia, and wayward states. It's economic, cultural, diplomatic, trade etc.

The USD is tolerated and accepted for trade because the security bargain was reasonable and the West, with the US as 'anchor' was a pretty good thing to be a part of.

Now it's not (or moving that way) - and literally everyone including US closest allies are looking for ways to de-dollarize and move away from the US.

What took decades to build will take decades to unwind, and of course this could still be a 'blip', but it's likely that things are never going fully back.

The language from these Neo Imperialist types seems to imply they're clueless about that. They are cheating on a system their much more dignified grandfather's built, and unaware that they are cheating.

We really need to start tracking these people.
by goalieca | 2026-01-07 01:12:01+00:00
> The productivity gains from LLMs are real, but not in the "replace humans" direction.

It might be the beer talking, but everytime someone comments on AI they have to say something along the lines of "LLM do help". If i'm being really honest, the fact everyone has to mention this in every comment and every blog post and every presentation is because deep down everyone isn't buying it.
by unignorant | 2026-01-07 01:12:29+00:00
These days it's almost trivial to design a binder against a target of interest with computation alone (tools like boltzgen, many others). While that's not the main bottleneck to drug development (imo you are correct about the main bottlenecks), it's still a huge change from the state of technology even 1 or 2 years ago, where finding that same binder could take months or years, and generally with a lot more resources thrown at the problem. These kinds of computational tools only started working really well quite recently (e.g., high enough hit rates for small scale screening where you just order a few designs, good Kd, target specificity out of the box).

So both things can be true: the more important bottlenecks remain, but progress on discovery work has been very exciting.
by telecomhacker | 2026-01-07 01:12:37+00:00
Soooo I've been working on a recommendation system for a top 50 shopping app in the app store. Was looking for ways to brainstorm ideas that could be used for my use-case, so I took 11 papers from 2025 RecSys and fed that into LLM's to get a summarized output that also looks for content relative to the site (tunable in the prompt.json).

Wanted to share in case other folks would like to try. Some ideas was to feed best practice coding books in there and creating an md file out of that. Anyways hope it helps you folks out there!
by _pdp_ | 2026-01-07 01:13:47+00:00
YEP

Things are changing. Now everyone can build bespoke apps. Are these apps pushing the limits of technology? No! But they work for the very narrow and specific domain they where designed. And yes they do not scale and have as much bugs as your personal shell scripts. But they work.

But let's not compare these with something more advance - at least not yet. Maybe by end of this year?

We switched from Sonnet 4.5 to Opus 4.5 as our default coding agent recently and we pay the price for the switch (3x the cost) but as the OP said, it is quite frankly amazing. It does a pretty good job, especially, especially when your code and project is structured in a such a way that it helps the agent perform well. Anthropic released an entire video on the subject recently which aligns with my own observations as well.

Where it fails hard is in the more subtle areas of the code, like good design, best practices, good taste, dry, etc. We often need to prompt it to refactor things as the quick solution it decided to do is not in our best interest for the long run. It often ends in deep investigations about things which are trivially obvious. It is overfitted to use unix tools in their pure form as it fail to remember (even with prompting) that it should run `pnpm test:unit` instead `npx jest` - it gets it wrong every time.

But when it works - it is wonderful.

I think we are at the point where we are close to self-improving software and I don't mean this lightly.

It turns out the unix philosophy runs deep. We are right now working on ways to give our agents more shells and we are frankly a few iterations there. I am not sure what to expect after this but I think whatever it is, it will be interesting to see.