MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by lijinxuan | 2026-01-11 11:04:42+00:00
I’ve been playing Dota 2 for about a few months now, so I’m still very much a beginner and learning the game.

One of the biggest things I’ve noticed during this time is how complex counter mechanics in Dota 2 really are.

It’s not just hero vs hero matchups —
it also includes how entire drafts interact with each other, how item choices can shift the game, and many counters that only apply under very specific conditions.
Because of that, simply looking at win rates or individual matches often doesn’t really explain why something is a counter.

So over the past month or so, I started organizing and documenting these counter relationships in my free time and put together a small website to make them easier to browse. It focuses on things like:

Hero counters and being countered

Situational item counters

Simple draft-phase hints about overall lineup interactions

The counters on the site aren’t based purely on hero matchup win rates.
They’re compiled from player discussions, guides, and shared experiences, and I’ve tried to filter out ideas that are clearly outdated.
The goal is to help explain why a certain hero or item can be effective in specific situations.

That said, since this is mostly a one-person project that I work on outside of my day job, there are still plenty of heroes and scenarios that aren’t covered yet.
Some counter explanations may also be incomplete or open to debate.

I see this more as a learning and discussion tool rather than a source of “correct answers,” so I’d really like to hear other players’ opinions and perspectives.

I’ve put everything here mainly for my own use and for a few friends:
https://dota2.tools/

If you have any suggestions or disagree with something, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
There’s also a Discord link on the site if anyone wants to give feedback or discuss ideas.
by everlier | 2026-01-11 11:05:10+00:00
Yes, the tool here is just to share the prompt, sorry the first one I had handy is the one describing the service itself.

Here's it in plain text to be more visible:

```
textclip.sh→URL gen: #t=<txt>→copy page | ?ask=<preset>#t=→svc redirect | ?redirect=<url>#t=→custom(use __TEXT__ placeholder). presets∈{claude,chatgpt,perplexity,gemini,google,bing,kagi,duckduckgo,brave,ecosia,wolfram}. len>500→auto deflate-raw #c= base64url encoded, efficient≤16k tokens. custom redirect→local LLM|any ?param svc. view mode: txt display+copy btn+new clip btn; copy→clipboard API→"Copied!" feedback 2s. create mode: textarea+live counters{chars,~tokens(len/4),url len}; color warn: tokens≥8k→yellow,≥16k→red; url≥7k→yellow,≥10k→red. badge gen: shields.io md [!alt](target_url);
```

It uses math notation to heavily compress the representation while keeping information content relatively preserved (similarly to GlyphLang. Later, LLM can comfortably use it to describe service in detail and answer user's questions about it. Same is applicable to arbitrary information, including source code/logic.
by comice | 2026-01-11 11:05:35+00:00
The comment was about heroin. Were you offered heroin?

Is cocaine and marijuana available from the government too? If not, what relevance is your comment?

Was this the first and only time you were waiting at a bus stop in Switzerland? If so, perhaps a notable story, if not then we'll need more information to conclude how bad this thug problem really is in Switzerland.
by cess11 | 2026-01-11 11:05:44+00:00
Quite the opposite, I'm suggesting the palestinians still have a right to their homelands even though europeans have settled, terrorised and displaced them.

Yeah, what about "rocket attacks"? Are they somehow more devastating than the US-israeli armory? If someone spits in front of my feet, then I can have them watch while I beat their family to death?
by RadiozRadioz | 2026-01-11 11:06:12+00:00
I feel similarly for a different reason. I put my code out there, licensed under the GPL. It is now, through a layer of indirection, being used to construct products that are not under the GPL. That's not what I signed up for.

I know the GPL didn't have a specific clause for AI, and the jury is still out on this specific case (how similar is it to a human doing the same thing?), but I like to imagine, had it been made today, there probably would be a clause covering this usage. Personally I think it's a violation of the spirit of the license.
by silves89 | 2026-01-11 11:06:30+00:00
I'm an experienced software engineer and ceramicist and I enjoyed this essay. I have stuff to say.

There are some wonderful industrial ceramic designs, e.g. Royal Copenhagen. But most of it is cold. Despite that people still become attached to their factory-produced porcelain mugs, because we want our daily objects to be our life-companions. We demand certain qualities that lead to intimacy. Studio pottery is a direct line to these deeper relationships, so when people own studio pottery for the first time they rarely want to go back. It's a red pill moment.

Studio pottery is not a luxury. You can buy a mug from one of the finest potters in the world for £50, and you can buy a beautiful piece for £25-£30. These might bring years of pleasure, and that registers with our customers as fantastic value. So there are plenty of studio potters all over the world who make a living with their craft.

However the product of craft-produced code and AI-produced code are, for a customer, mostly the same. So my fear is that writing code by hand will become little more than a challenging and pleasurable distraction, like a big-brained version of solving sudoku, whereas making pottery will always have a value that outstrips it's factory-produced counterparts.

But I think there is a parallel between clay and code here. There are night-school potters who just love making and getting away from their fucking screens. I have love for every one of these people. And there are those who take it much further, who read the books and design the kilns, who wood-fire in shifts over many days, who study glaze chemistry, who create objects no one has imagined before. And in software there are the line-of-business enterprise coders, and often they're handle turners who would really rather be doing something else but there are those who take it much further, who read the books and language specs, who work on foundational open source tools and study compiler design, who create idioms and paradigms no one has yet conceived of.

All that's very interesting. But for me the commercial side is prosaic and a bit dull. The pleasures of both are the creativity, which is itself a way of re-enchanting my materialist and bewildering late-capitalist way of life.
by BoredPositron | 2026-01-11 11:07:31+00:00
We are 5 years in... it's fine to be sceptical. The model advancements are in the single digits now. It's not on us that they promised the world 3 years ago. It's fine and will be just fine for the next few years. A real breakthrough is at least another 5 years away and if it comes everything you do now will be obsolete. Nobody will need or care about the dude that Sloperatored Claude Code on release and that's the reality everyone who goes full AI evangelist needs to understand. You are just a stopgap. The knowledge you are accumulating now is just worthless transitional knowledge. There is no need for FOMO and there is nothing hard operating LLMs for coding and it will get easier by the day.
by burnermore | 2026-01-11 11:08:07+00:00
This is an absolute valid concern. We either need strong governmental interventions to these models who don't comply with OSS.

Or accept that there definitely wont be open model businesses. Make them proprietary and accept the fact that even permissive licenses such as MIT, BSD Clause 2/3 wont't be followed by anyone while writing OSS.

And as for Tailwind, I donno if it is cos of AI.
by chiengineer | 2026-01-11 11:08:11+00:00
99% of these current stacks will be outdated in just a few short years

All languages will be agnostic chips and chip designs and everything is changing overnight

It will understand what to make before you even want it to finish - zero latency - real time encrypted hyper chats -

But in order for us to truly get there

We essentially have to eliminate all dictators end slavery world wide and world hunger

Then we can get to the real work - bringing infrastructure to africa -

A real life wakanda - except its actually might be possible now lol
by tarsinge | 2026-01-11 11:08:45+00:00
The analogy with evolution breaks down because currently the fitness function is broken. It would work in a world where anti trust would be still enforced, where customers could vote with their money instead of having to deal with enshitiffied monopolies. In a world where tech CEOs can buy a dinner to stay above the law, where tech is used as a weapon of influence so that
other countries like in the EU are not allowed under penalty of sanctions to not use US platforms even when it breaks their law, it is reassuring for engineer minds but ultimately pointless to explain the state of the industry from market dynamics alone.
by Nursie | 2026-01-11 11:09:18+00:00
That was a standalone piece though, rather than some sort of trend. The choose-your-own nature of it was integral to the story and referential to the contemporary books which were CYO.

Your theory fits fine with “We’re not going to make a series like this or turn it into a genre”, but not so well with “we already made this thing and it was really popular, but we’ve decided to take it off the platform”
by SyzygyRhythm | 2026-01-11 11:09:19+00:00
Getting an EKG seems very prudent. I had one done for a non-heart related procedure, and afterwards was basically asked:
- Ever have any heart events? Heart racing, palpitations, that kind of thing?
- Yes, a few times a year I've noticed events like that. Resolves in a few minutes, though.
- Well, your EKG shows a slurred delta wave. Sign of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Might want to get that checked out.

I did, and it was. Fixed with ablation. No issues since. Other types of supraventricular tachycardia can also be cured with ablation.
by vbezhenar | 2026-01-11 11:09:41+00:00
> I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d need more than that to be convinced. Sorry.

So basically my point is:

1. You can avoid closing some tags, letting browser to close tags for you. It won't do any harm.

2. You can choose to explicitly close all tags. It won't do anything for valid HTML, but it'll introduce subtle and hard to find DOM bugs by adding empty elements.

So you're trying to improve HTML source readability by risking to introduce subtle bugs.

If you want to do that, I'd recommend to implement HTML validation for build or test pipeline at least.

Another alternative is to use HTML comments to close tags, as this closing tag is supposed to be documentation-only and won't be used by browser in a proper code.
by phtrivier | 2026-01-11 11:10:23+00:00
How would we measure the effects of AI coding tool taking over manual coding ? Would we see an increase in the number of GitHub projects ? In the number of stars (given the ai is so good) ? In the number of start up ipos (surely if all your engineers are 1000x engineers thanks to Claude code, we'll have plenty of googles and Amazons to invest in) ? In the price of software (if I can just vibe code everything, than a 10$ fully compatible replacement for MS Windows is just a few months away, right ?) In the the numbers of app published in the stores ?
by galdauts | 2026-01-11 11:10:47+00:00
I feel like the use of the term "anti-AI hype" is not really fully explored here. Even limiting myself to tech-related applications - I'm frankly sick of companies trying to shove half-baked "AI features" down my throat, and the enshittification of services that ensues. That has little to do with using LLMs as coding assistants, and yet I think it is still an essential part of the "anti-AI hype".
by chrz | 2026-01-11 11:10:51+00:00
> How do I feel, about all the code I wrote that was ingested by LLMs? I feel great to be part of that, because I see this as a continuation of what I tried to do all my life: democratizing code, systems, knowledge. LLMs are going to help us to write better software, faster, and will allow small teams to have a chance to compete with bigger companies.

You might feel great, thats fine, but I dont.
And software quality is going down, I wouldn't agree that LLMs will help write better software
by Bishonen88 | 2026-01-11 11:10:57+00:00
Could you estimate how much was written by AI vs you? Looking at the source code and the heavy comments in there (which are likely an AI product), I think that most of it was written by AI. Same with the whole docs directory.

google says that assisting means:

assist
/əˈsɪst/
help (someone), typically by doing a share of the work.

So in this case... wouldn't the relationship be inverted, e.g. you assisting AI? (semi joking ;))
by adityaathalye | 2026-01-11 11:10:58+00:00
Don't fall into the "Look ma, no hands" hype.

Antirez + LLM + CFO = Billion Dollar Redis company, quite plausibly.

/However/ ...

As for the delta provided by an LLM to Antirez, outside of Redis (and outside of any problem space he is already intimately familiar with), an Apples to Apples comparison would be he trying this on an equally complex codebase he has no idea about. I'll bet... what Antirez can do with Redis and LLMs (certainly useful, huge Quality of Life improvement to Antirez), he cannot even begin to do with (say) Postgres.

The only way to get there with (say) Postgres, would be to /know/ Postgres. And pretty much everyone, no matter how good, cannot get there with code-reading alone. With software at least, we need to develop a mental model of the thing by futzing about with the thing in deeply meaningful ways.

And most of us day-job grunts are in the latter spot... working in some grimy legacy multi-hundred-thousand line code-mine, full of NPM vulns, schelpping code over the wall to QA (assuming there is even a QA), and basically developing against live customers --- "learn by shipping", as they say.

I do think LLMs are wildly interesting technology, however they are poor utility for non-domain-experts. If organisations want to profit from the fully-loaded cost of LLM technology, they better also invest heavily in staff training and development.
by edg5000 | 2026-01-11 11:11:42+00:00
It took me a few months of working with the agents to get really productive with it. The gains are significant. I write highly detailed specs (equiv multiple A4 pages) in markdown and dicate the agent hierarchy (which agent does what, who reports to who).

I've learned a lot of new things this year thanks to AI. It's true that the low levels skills with atrophy. The high level skills will grow though; my learning rate is the same, just at a much higher abstraction level; thus covering more subjects.

The main concern is the centralisation. The value I can get out of this thing currently well exceeds my income. AI companies are buying up all the chips. I worry we'll get something like the housing market where AI will be about 50% of our income.

We have to fight this centralisation at all costs!
by nikcub | 2026-01-11 11:11:43+00:00
I've used cursor and claude code both daily[0] within a month of their releases - i'm learning something new on how to work with and apply the tools almost every day.

I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best developers[1] are using these tools and some openly advocating for them because it still requires core skills to get the most out of them

I can honestly say that building end-to-end products with claude code has made me a better developer, product designer, tester, code reviewer, systems architect, project manager, sysadmin etc. I've learned more in the past ~year than I ever have in my career.

[0] abandoned cursor late last year

[1] see Linus using antigravity, antirez in OP, Jared at bun, Charlie at uv/ruff, mitushiko, simonw et al
by serf | 2026-01-11 11:12:01+00:00
I don't understand the mindset because I began my foray into open source exactly because I wanted to distribute and share my code.

in other words, i've never been in the position that I felt my charitable givings anywhere were ever stolen.

Some people write code and put it out there without caveats. Some people jump into open source to be license warriors. Not me. I just write code and share it. If youre a person, great. if you're a machine then I suppose that's okay too -- I don't want to play musical chairs with licenses all day just to throw some code out there, and I don't particularly care if someone more clever than myself uses it to generate a profit.
by nielsole | 2026-01-11 11:12:40+00:00
In the late 2000s i remember that "nobody is willing to pay for things on the Internet" was a common trope.
I think it'll culturally take a while before businesses and people understand what they are willing to pay for. For example if you are a large business and you pay xxxxx-xxxxxx per year per developer, but are only willing to pay xxx per year in AI tooling, something's out of proportion.
by NitpickLawyer | 2026-01-11 11:13:03+00:00
> Whatever you believe about what the Right Thing should be, you can't control it by refusing what is happening right now. Skipping AI is not going to help you or your career. Think about it. Test these new tools, with care, with weeks of work, not in a five minutes test where you can just reinforce your own beliefs.

This is the advice I've been giving my friends and coworkers as well for a while now. Forget the hype, just take time to test them from time to time. See where it's at. And "prepare" for what's to come, as best you can.

Another thing to consider. If you casually look into it by just reading about it, be aware that almost everything you read in "mainstream" places has been wrong in 2025. The people covering this, writing about this, producing content on this have different goals in this era. They need hits, likes, shares and reach. They don't get that with accurate reporting. And, sadly, negativity sells. It is what it is.

THe only way to get an accurate picture is to try them yourself. The earlier you do that, the better you'll be. And a note on signals: right now, a "positive" signal is more valuable for you than many "negative" ones. Read those and try to understand the what, if not the how. "I did this with cc" is much more valuable today than "x still doesn't do y reliably".
by bsaul | 2026-01-11 11:13:08+00:00
An ecosystem is being built around AI : Best prompting practices, mcps, skills, IDE integration, how to build a feedback loop so that LLM can test its output alone, plug to the outside world with browser extensions, etc...

For now i think people can still catch up quickly, but at the end of 2026 it's probably going to be a different story.
by oncallthrow | 2026-01-11 11:13:27+00:00
I want to write less, because quite frankly I get zero satisfaction from having an LLM churn out code for me, in the same way that Vincent van Gogh would likely derive no joy from using Nano Banana to create a painting.

And sure, I could stubbornly refuse to use an LLM and write the code myself. But after getting used to LLM-assisted coding, particularly recent models, writing code by hand feels extremely tedious now.
by cromka | 2026-01-11 11:13:33+00:00
Interesting. I just moved to Android from iOS with the idea of eventually switching to GrapheneOS, but was scared that my apps will randomly stop working as soon as Google catches up with the hacks. From what I heard it's a cat and mouse situation, they patch things, then android community finds a way. I do not want to find myself in a situation I need to use my bank or government app and fail because Google just caught up with the hack.

So what you're saying is that you can have it permanently 'fixed' with no shenanigans like that?
by fl7305 | 2026-01-11 11:13:45+00:00
> colonial remnant

The whole southern part of Greenland was empty when Denmark landed there a thousand years ago.

Bad weather and the Inuit managed to kill off the Danish settlers after that, before they returned a few hundred years later.

So the Danish were one of the original settlers of Greenland. Not "colonizers".

Or do you call the Inuit "colonizers" too, since they spread to lands outside of the original home?
by baq | 2026-01-11 11:14:45+00:00
I haven't been listening to any promises, I'm simply trying out the models as they get released. I agree with the article wholeheartedly - you can't pretend these tools are not worth learning anymore. It's irresponsible if you're a professional.

Next breakthrough will happen in 2030 or it might happen next Tuesday; it might have already happened, it's just that the lab which did it is too scared to release it. It doesn't matter: until it happens, you should work with what you've got.
by esperent | 2026-01-11 11:14:50+00:00
> But I'm worried for the folks that will get fired. It is not clear what the dynamic at play will be: will companies try to have more people, and to build more?

This is the crux. AI suddenly became good and society hasn't caught on yet. Programmers are a bit ahead of the curve here, being closer to the action of AI. But in a couple of years, if not already, all the other technical and office jobs will be equally affected. Translators, admin, marketing, scientists, writers of all sorts and on and on. Will we just produce more and retain a similar level of employment, or will AI be such a force multiplier that a significant number or even most of these jobs will be gone? Nobody knows yet.

And yet, what I'm even more worried about for their society upending abilities, is robots. These are coming soon and they'll arrive with just as much suddeness and inertia as AI did.

The robots will be as smart as the AI running them, so what happens when they're cheap and smart enough to replace humans in nearly all physical jobs?

Nobody knows the answer to this. But in 5 years, or 10, we will find out.
by LaurensBER | 2026-01-11 11:14:54+00:00
It's hard to accurately measure but one advantage that the multi-agent approach has seems to be speed. I routinely see Sisyphus launching up to 4 sub agents to read/analyse a file and/or to do things in parallel.

The quality of the output depends more on the underlying LLM. GLM 4.7 isn't going to beat Opus but Opus with an orchestra seems to be faster and perhaps marginally better than with a more linear approach.

Ofcourse this burns a lot of tokens but with a cheap subscription like z. ai or with a corporate budget does it really matter?
by yard2010 | 2026-01-11 11:15:09+00:00
This is making me sad. The people that are going to lose their jobs will be literally weaponized against minorities by the crooked politicians that are doing their thing right now, it's going to be a disaster I can tell. I just wish I could go back in time. I don't want to live in this timeline anymore. I lost my passion job before anything of it even happened. On the paper.
by rvz | 2026-01-11 11:15:15+00:00
> What I don't understand about this whole "get on board the AI train or get left behind" narrative, what advantage does an early adopter have for AI tools?

The ones pushing this narrative have either the following:

* Invested in AI companies (which they will never disclose until they IPO / acquired)

* Employees at AI companies that have stock options which they are effectively paid boosters around AGI nonsense.

* Mid-life crisis / paranoia that their identity as a programmer is being eroded and have to pivot to AI.

It is no different to the crypto web3 bubble of 2021. This time, it is even more obvious and now the grifters from crypto / tech are already "pivoting to ai". [0]

[0] https://pivot-to-ai.com/