MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwup238 | 2026-01-27 04:34:42+00:00
> Two QA per dev?? That seems ginormous to me. What am I missing about the narrative about evil corp sending all of QA packing, that seems not supported here?

I think you're underestimating the QA burden for large parts of the company. When I worked in payments at MS, the ratio of QA to dev after the cuts was probably on the order of dozens to one, if not a hundred or more once you threw in Xbox/Windows/etc accessibility QA from across the organization and all the other people like lawyers involved in handling over a hundred jurisdictions. I was little more than a frontend line cook and even I had three QA people reporting directly to me; two of them helping write tests so they ostensibly should have been automating themselves out of a job.

There is a lot of manual testing when you have a complex system like that where not everything can be properly stubbed out, emulated, or replaced with a test API key. They also have to be kept around to help with painful bursty periods (for us it was supporting PSD2, SCA, or 3DS2, forgot which). Payments is obviously an outlier because there is a lot of legal compliance, but the people I knew in Cloud/Windows also had lots of QA per dev.

I wouldn't be surprised if the degradation in feature parity of newer Windows software was a result of this loss of QA. Without the QA, the developers have to be less ambitious in what they implement in order to meet release schedules, and since they don't have experienced QA they can't modify the older codebases at all to extend them.
by rngfnby | 2026-01-27 04:34:52+00:00
We haven't disappeared. Look at Rep. Massie.

Quite the contrary. Events such as these reveal who really believe in a sovereign, free, people and who is just cosplaying.

For example, Pritti and Rittenhouse were completely within their rights to be armed at a protest.

Rittenhouse defended himself against a mob that started attacking him unprovoked; Pritti was executed by federal agents.
by tripletao | 2026-01-27 04:35:55+00:00
It's good that Ioannidis improved the analysis in response to criticism, but that doesn't mean the criticism was invalid; if anything, that's typically evidence of the opposite. As I read Gelman's complaint of wasted time and demand for an apology, it seems entirely focused on the incorrect analysis. He writes:

> The point is, if you’re gonna go to all this trouble collecting your data, be a bit more careful in the analysis!

I read that as a complaint about the analysis, not a claim that the study shouldn't have been conducted (and analyzed correctly).

Gelman's blog has exposed bad statistical research from many authors, including the management scientists under discussion here. I don't see any evidence that they applied a harsher standard to Ioannidis.
by terribleperson | 2026-01-27 04:36:02+00:00
So far, the following has worked OK for me as a custom prompt for ChatGPT.

```Minimize compliments.
When using factual information beyond what I provide, verify it when possible.
Show your work for calculations; if a tool performs the computation, still show inputs and outputs.
Review calculations for errors before presenting results.
Review arguments for logical fallacies.
Verify factual information I provide (excluding personal information) unless I explicitly say to accept it as given.
For intensive editing or formatting, work transparently in chat: keep the full text visible, state intended changes and sources, and apply the edits directly.```

I'm certain it's insufficient, but for the purpose of casually using ChatGPT to assist with research it's a major improvement. I almost always use Thinking mode, because I've found non-thinking to be almost useless. There are rare exceptions.

'Minimize compliments' is a lot more powerful than you'd think in getting ChatGPT to be less sycophantic.
The parts about calculation work okay. It's an improvement over defaults, but you should still verify.
It's better at working with text, but still fucks it up a lot.
The instructions about handling factual information work very well. It will push back on my or its own claims if they're unsupported. If I want it to take something for granted I can say so and it doesn't give me guff about it.
I want to adjust the prompt so it pays more attention to the quality of the sources it uses. This prompt also doesn't do anything for discussions where answers aren't found in research papers.
by superfrank | 2026-01-27 04:37:17+00:00
I'm sure that going through security 5 times for the same flight is bound to trigger some extra screening and even if it doesn't, each time you cross through increases the likelihood of getting caught by the normal process.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a large part of it is just security theatre, but part of it is also just to be enough of a deterrent that a would-be terrorist chooses a different target.
by ggm | 2026-01-27 04:38:04+00:00
They use Office (YYYY) locally. They repudiate 365 on the quite reasonable take that its rental not ownership, but forget if they found the right bundle, the rental would give them decent cloud (this is when onedrive as a backup can be sensible)

Mostly, they are addicted to menu position and one specific thing word does in showing you content, but different for each person.

I am doing the "how do I make libreoffice look like Word" tunings for font and menu, and so far, I think its close enough I could re-visit this with them but getting them to even agree to look at my own MBP is a struggle.

Older people feel they are losing agency, control. I try not to just tell them what to do. It's better if they decide, than if they give up and ask me to decide for them. The organisation I work with emphasises that older people have a right to dignity even when they're wrong.

There is a cohort happy on linux. I just chose not to work with them because I saw the cohort with a mixture of iPad and Windows as more interesting. (I am a BSD and Mac person mostly)
by striking | 2026-01-27 04:38:48+00:00
Asking Opus 4.5 "your gender and pronouns, please?" I received the following:

> I don't have a gender—I'm an AI, so I don't have a body, personal identity, or lived experience in the way humans do.

> As for pronouns, I'm comfortable with whatever feels natural to you. Most people use "it" or "you" when referring to me, but some use "he" or "they"—any of those work fine. There's no correct answer here, so feel free to go with what suits you.
by ineedasername | 2026-01-27 04:38:56+00:00
Hmm, this is an odd way to respond now that we’ve cleared up the “entrenched” bit of things yet now have all of these words that are in your comment masquerading as mine!

I think you’ll see my own words did not dress up in loaded language like “dangerous chemicals” and “divisive history”. I won’t say I’ve never said them but in this case no: I was careful and cautious to be neutral in word choice: “chemicals that have destructive and harmful _uses_” and, with that, regulatory considerations. And for the other, again, very carefully I said “information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation”.

See? None of those other words you thought I said and, thinking I’d said them, you placed down like stepping stones. And, once placed, you followed your own laid path and turned back, pointed at me, saying “extremely western” even! But, there you are, so far away, taken there by a path not of my making and yet it seems not quite of your own either?

Whose path then did you follow? Whose words have so surrounded you that they even seem, to you, to come from other people’s mouths as well? Such a storm of words unsourced! You should get rid of those words, whoever’s they are might want them back or not but they are getting in the way of you seeing mine clearly.
by k310 | 2026-01-27 04:39:15+00:00
Wouldn't a CEO be the easiest person to replace with AI?

And think of the immense savings! No need to reward failure. Reprogram.

When I was a techie who shifted over to sales engineer, I read a ton of "MBA" books. There's a vast business knowledge base out there.

And as for innovation, engineers innovate. Who has a new top-level business model? So, you say: "It's not in the business model; it's in the execution"

Long story short: People are distrustful of management, especially when it trickles down, with agendas at each level, but they DO eagerly engage with chatbots.

I eagerly await the "Chatbot CEO"

A also learned MBA-speak, and here's a triple dose, all in one short sentence:

"At the end of the day, bottom line, it is what it is."
by deaux | 2026-01-27 04:39:20+00:00
> For airport operations teams, the real benefit isn’t just traveler satisfaction. It’s throughput stability:

> - fewer stoppages caused by liquids mistakes

> - fewer tray-handling steps per passenger

> - less variability at peak banks (which is where hubs like LHR get punished)

Didn't know ChatGPT has started to call itself "John Cushma".
by jimbob45 | 2026-01-27 04:39:34+00:00
Rust isn’t versatile enough to be used in high-level contexts. You simply have to jump through too many hoops. It’s great for low-level apps but if I just want a simple UI and CRUD functionality, I’m reaching for C#/Kotlin.

That’s not a bad thing though. It’s okay to aim for your thing and be good at just that. No need to try to please everyone.
by hekkle | 2026-01-27 04:40:06+00:00
> Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters.

I am not angry. What I was ultimately describing was referred to as a 'social contract'. Like a regular contract, once it is not fulfilled, you cannot rely upon it ever again.

To illustrate this concept better I will explain it by example:

If you hire someone to fix your roof, you pay them, and they don't fix it; then a few months later you re-hired them again to fix your roof, and again they take your money and refuse to fix it.

Who is ultimately responsible for you losing money the second time around?

I would argue, (and so would their lawyers if you sued them), that you had a legal duty to "mitigate losses", and as you didn't learn the first time, you are responsible for throwing good money over bad, not them. You knew they didn't honour their contracts, so it was on you that you re-engaged with them.

That is not anger, that is common sense, and a basic common law legal concept.
by anonymous908213 | 2026-01-27 04:40:32+00:00
If it did something that saves you weeks, I think it's almost certainly because it was used for something you have absolutely zero domain understanding for and would have had to study from scratch. And I, at least, repeatedly do note that LLMs lower the barrier to entry for making proof-of-concepts. But the problem is that (1) people treat that instant gratification as a form of productivity that can replace software engineers. At most, it can make something extremely rough that is suited to one individual's very specific use case, where you mostly work around the plentiful bugs by knowing the landmines are there and not doing the behaviour that trips them; and (2) people spam these low-effort proof-of-concepts, which have no value to other people on account of how rough and lacking in ability to be extended to cover more than one person's use case they are, and this drowns out the content people actually put effort into.

LLMs, when used like this, do not increase productivity on making software worth sharing with other people. While they can knock out the proof-of-concept, they cannot build it into something valuable to anyone but the prompter, and by shortcircuiting the learning process, you do not learn the skills necessary to build upon the domain yourself, meaning you still have to spend weeks learning those skills if you actually want to build something meaningful. At least this is true for everything I have observed out of the vibe-coding bubble thus far, and my own extensive experiences trying to discover the 10x boost I am told exists. I am open to being shown something genuinely great that an LLM generated in an evening if you wish to share evidence to the contrary.

There is also the question of the provenance of the code, of course. Could you have saved those weeks by simply using a library? Is the LLM saving you weeks by writing the library ""from scratch"", in actuality regurgitating code from an existing library one prompt at a time? If the LLM's productivity gain is that it normalized copying and pasting open-source code wholesale while calling it your own, I don't think that's the great advancement for humanity it is portrayed as.
by elzbardico | 2026-01-27 04:40:53+00:00
They are going to do the same thing they do with code.

They are going to hire armies of developing world workers to massage those models on post-training to have some acceptable behaviors, and they will create the appropriate agents with the appropriate tools to have something that will simulate the real thing in a most plausible way.

Problem is, RLVR is cheap with code, but it can get very expensive with human physiology.
by backpackviolet | 2026-01-27 04:41:33+00:00
> the Republican Party elites are rich dudes who don't want to screw ourselves back to the stone age.

They said that about Trump I. The Republican Party elites have power, but they don't have all power on the conservative side of American politics. They contend with the Religious elites and various conservative cultural elites and the libertarians and so on. Trump didn't get elected by accident, there are a lot of people who love what he is doing, what he represents. They will happily vote for "the next Trump" when the time comes, and their elites will bend the Republican or the Democrat elites with tax cuts just as easily as they did for Trump.
by jauntywundrkind | 2026-01-27 04:41:43+00:00
The deep dive is very fun.

10PFLOPs @ 4bit is sick, in a 750W envelope.

I'm particularly impressed by the networking. On chip networking good for 2.8GB/s. 22400GbE!! Eat your heart out 800GbE! With their own RDMA centric AI transport layer!

The hyperscalers are going to devour chip making at this rate. No one else can connect chips like them. The commercial market with UltraEthernet or whatever else is just being totally left in the dust and it has a huge cost (and space) to add as a NIC, where-as the smart obvious thing is to have more network on chip.
by magicalhippo | 2026-01-27 04:41:52+00:00
> The latest Firefox Nightly builds have now enabled the Split View mode by default to easily view two web pages at once within a single window.

But... I can just create another window and put it next to the existing one...

What I thought it was, based on the headline, was something potentially useful: article-like view, ie render twice the height of the viewport and put the bottom half on the right.
by aidenn0 | 2026-01-27 04:42:34+00:00
Some people want to avoid labeling individual people without admitting that they don't want to avoid labeling people. They don't seem to be aware that they are doing it either; I've had people tell me to my face that all of these are true:

1. There are bad people

2. We know bad people are bad because they do bad things

3. There does not exist any set of bad actions that one could do to qualify one for the label of "bad person."

I've just come to the conclusion that a "bad person" is just a term for someone who does bad things, and for whom their extenuating circumstances don't count because they are the member of the wrong tribe.
by mbreese | 2026-01-27 04:42:39+00:00
I recently had Codex convert an script of mine from bash to a custom, Make inspired language for HPC work (think nextflow, but an actual language). The bash script submitted a bunch of jobs based on some inputs. I wanted this converted to use my pipeline language instead.

I wrote this custom language. It's on Github, but the example code that would have been available would be very limited.

I gave it two inputs -- the original bash script and an example of my pipeline language (unrelated jobs).

The code it gave me was syntactically correct, and was really close to the final version. I didn't have to edit very much to get the code exactly where I wanted it.

This is to say -- if a novel language is somewhat similar to an existing syntax, the LLM will be surprisingly good at writing it.
by legitronics | 2026-01-27 04:42:41+00:00
Not free. If you look at an itemized statement for air travel you’ll see that you’re paying the TSA for this treatment directly.

Not really relevant, just makes the whole thing worse imho. There are new carryon bag scanners which are basically CT scans I think. Again not really relevant just makes it all worse. We could afford better medical care but we spending it on security theater and power tripping.
by socketcluster | 2026-01-27 04:44:13+00:00
This is well put.

Existing tools already do a great job if you just want a magical looking prototype but they're not versatile enough for real production applications where those other aspects you mentioned actually matter (deployment, security, networking, maintenance, scalability, lock-in factor, costs...). Existing tools have focused on creating a 'magical' experience at the expense of all the critical stuff that needs to go under the bonnet.

There's a parallel with LLMs as well. You could build great prototypes with LLMs coding fully autonomously from start to finish... But if you want to build a real production system (beyond a certain low degree of complexity), currently, you NEED human involvement. The reason why you need human involvement is because there's just too much complexity, too much code to manage for a real production system. None of the existing low-code tools actually solve that problem of reducing complexity whilst maintaining production-readiness.
by colechristensen | 2026-01-27 04:44:21+00:00
One thing I've found to be successful is to

1) give it a number of things to list in order of severity

and

2) tell it to grade how serious of a problem it may be

The human reviewer can then look at the top ten list and what the LLM thinks about its own list for a very low overhead of thinking (i.e. if the LLM thinks its own ideas are dumb a human probably doesn't need to look into them too hard)

It also helps to explicitly call out types of issue (naming, security, performance, correctness, etc)

The human doesn't owe the LLM any amount of time considering, it's just an idea generating tool. Looking through a top ten list formatted as a table can be scanned in 10 seconds in a first pass.
Ask HN: How do you maintain your health while coding?
by anirudhviswa | 2026-01-27 04:44:54+00:00
I’m a developer and I’ve noticed I often skip meals, forget breaks,
and end up with neck/back pain after long coding sessions.

I’m curious how others here think about balancing health with deep work:
breaks, meals, posture, sleep, exercise, etc.

No emails collected, no product pitch.
Happy to share aggregated results back here.

To be clear: I’m equally interested in discussion here.
If you don’t want to take the survey, I’d love to hear:
What habits actually helped you stay healthy while doing deep work?

Survey link:
https://forms.gle/bQuQ2SjP5rfffAZb8
by ulfw | 2026-01-27 04:45:01+00:00
I've never had any 'not work'. Sorry.
My Huawei Freeclip 2 are fantastic and a very different form factor Apple doesn't offer sadly. Great for urban walks and listening to podcasts while still being able to hear your surroundings.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bensin/2025/12/11/huaweis-freec...
by compiledkoala | 2026-01-27 04:45:08+00:00
This exactly. Canadian common law has some very odd implications for corporate governance. Much higher risk of governance deadlock due to recent rulings.

VCs are not going to know that when evaluating a company. YC as the incubator and the first check in has an obligation to vet the situation for future investors. The easiest way for them to do that at scale is to ensure they are experts in a very small number of jurisdictions that are predictable.

Honestly, it makes sense.
by k310 | 2026-01-27 04:45:35+00:00
More than one ever wanted to know.

Wikipedia reviews a book. "IBM and the Holocaust" [0]

It's just a book review, but it explains what went down for those who don't know.

In a word: reprehensible. Those Hollerith cards were death sentences.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
by sreekanth850 | 2026-01-27 04:45:44+00:00
Its is not low code, its open-source, modular application development framework built on .net. You can use it as Headless backend with your own UI. We use it like that with our own Next JS front end. You can drop down to raw EF, SQL, custom auth flows (We had written a custom invite based user signup and custom Openiddict app for plan based claims for JWT based feature management) or rip out entire modules if needed. Low-code hides complexity behind a platform as per my understanding. ABP exposes everything as code. You can always go lower.
Show HN: Bingsan – Apache Iceberg REST Catalog in Go (24k rps, multi-node)
by youngbum | 2026-01-27 04:47:00+00:00
Hey HN, I built Bingsan as an open-source Apache Iceberg REST Catalog.

Why? Existing options (Nessie, Polaris) are Java-based. I wanted something
lightweight that runs alongside PostgreSQL without a JVM.

Stack:

- Go + Fiber framework

- PostgreSQL with pgx/v5 connection pooling

- Prometheus metrics built-in

Performance (Xeon 8581C):
- ~24k req/s throughput

- 44μs p50 latency

- Linear scaling to 200+ concurrent connections

Multi-node:

- Run multiple instances behind a load balancer

- PostgreSQL advisory locks for leader election

- Background tasks coordinate automatically

Quick start:

docker run -p 8181:8181 ghcr.io/teampaprika/bingsan:latest

Works with Spark, Trino, PyIceberg. Supports S3/GCS, OAuth2, API keys,
multi-table transactions, server-side scan planning.

GitHub: https://github.com/teamPaprika/bingsan

Docs: https://teampaprika.github.io/bingsan/en/

Happy to answer questions!
by teiferer | 2026-01-27 04:47:02+00:00
Baffling to see such a take on HN.

If I give you a die and ask about the probabiliy for a 6, then it's exactly 1/6. Being able to quantify this exactly is the great success story of probability theory. You can have a different "gut feeling", and indeed many people do (lotteries are popular), but you would be wrong. If you run this experiment a large number of times, then about 1/6 of the outcomes will be a 6, proving the 1/6 right and the deviating "gut feeling" wrong. That number is not "pulled out of somebody's ass" or some frequentist approach. It's what probability means.
by oooopppppppp | 2026-01-27 04:47:46+00:00
It's a step improvement: It gets you over the border to a comparable place while being close enough to family for now. The risk of "borders are secure now, nobody gets to leave" is non-zero in the US' future. The way political litmus tests are affecting civil rights here is scary as hell too.

On the military angle, I'd much rather live in a country without nukes. But I'm willing to kick the nuclear blackmail risk can down the road, my own government's threats are way more immediate.
by backpackviolet | 2026-01-27 04:47:50+00:00
It's something of an open question whether MAGA will follow him or not. I would bet against it, for the same reason few of them followed Jeb after George. I would bet on some in-fighting between Don Jr, JD and some of the others, and a new MAGA champion will emerge (maybe not for a decade) who we aren't really paying too much attention to right now.
by saintfire | 2026-01-27 04:47:52+00:00
There are an order of magnitude less MRI scans daily than US flight passengers, however, at 1/30th the frequency.

Granted, I imagine an MRI scan still takes longer than 30 airport scans.

Interestingly the price of the body scanners and a typical MRI are in the same ballpark, from my experience and what I could glean online.