MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kajolshah_bt | 2026-01-23 12:08:52+00:00
This is such a classic failure mode: even a 15–20% confident misroute is brutal because it forces “review everything,” kills trust, and increases repeats/reopens.

When you rolled back, did you keep AI as suggestions only + rules-based routing? And what metric exposed it fastest for you: recontact rate, handle time, or escalation to humans?
by fauigerzigerk | 2026-01-23 12:09:36+00:00
You are assuming that hinkley intended to control their emotions and that cursing wasn't just a rhetorical thing in this instance.

There clearly is a link between words and emotions. But this link - and even more so the link between emotions and actions - is very complex.

Too many fears are based on the assumption of a rather more reductionist and mechanistic sort of link where no one has any control over anything. That's not realistic and our legal system contradicts this assumption.
by antirez | 2026-01-23 12:10:00+00:00
TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results.

Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in experienced maintainers that are able to tell if a change looks sensible or not.
by Sharlin | 2026-01-23 12:10:44+00:00
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate and detrimental to the society.
by weinzierl | 2026-01-23 12:10:45+00:00
"The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have."

And this is one half of why I think

"Bad AI drivers will be [..] ridiculed in public."

isn't a good clause. The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Putting it as a rule in your policy document makes it only worse.
by reincarnate0x14 | 2026-01-23 12:11:36+00:00
If you're debugging your own equipment you should have the certificates or keys to make it work. I'm not saying that's easy in a lot of scenarios, in fact it's frequently tedious as hell. But for example there are debug tools for like DNP3 or RPC over TLS, etc that can watch the whole exchange if provided the keys and parse the SCADA traffic or JSON objects as if it was plaintext.

But this goes back to the vendors not providing better tools in the first place. We shouldn't NEED to be picking apart packet streams to prove to some jackass tech support ticket that their code is FUBAR. They're basically outsourcing support to their customer or userbase and we tolerated it because it was more expedient.
by touisteur | 2026-01-23 12:11:38+00:00
I thought so but no, iterative small matrix multiplication kernel in tensor cores, or pure (generative) compute with ultra-late reduction and ultra-small working memory. nsight-compute says everything is in L1 or small register file, no spilling, and that I am compute bound, good ILP. Can't find a way to get more than 10% for the 300W difference. Thus asking if anyone did better and how and how reliable the HW stays.
by sreekanth850 | 2026-01-23 12:12:37+00:00
True, you can’t exist without 3rd parties. But you shouldn’t let them be your core moat/USP. Jasper is a great example, they depended too much on LLM access, then ChatGPT launched and ate the value. Using third party APIs is fine, but building a product whose core depends on them is suicide.
by ricardo81 | 2026-01-23 12:12:50+00:00
Agree. It was not standard in the late 90s or early 00s. Most sites were custom built and relied on the _webmaster_ knowing and understanding how robots.txt worked. I'd heard plenty of examples where people had inadvertently blocked crawlers from their site, not knowing the syntax correctly. CMS' probably helped in the widespread adoption e.g. wordpress
by MarginalGainz | 2026-01-23 12:12:53+00:00
This scale is only possible because of what they don't ask Postgres to do.

If you treat Postgres strictly as a Key-Value store for transactional integrity, it flies. But if you try to run complex discovery or tsvector search on that same primary, the locking/CPU load kills it instantly.

The real hero here is aggressive segregation: keep Postgres for 'Truth', and offload all discovery to specialized indices that don't block the write-head.
by natmaka | 2026-01-23 12:13:43+00:00
Sea water: "it is clear that it would be very risky today, to have a long-term industrial strategy based on significant production of uranium from seawater with an affordable cost" ( https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2016/01/epjn15... )

> With breeder reactors

After decades of expensive R&D... there is no model of industrial breeder reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ). Can you name one?

Russia is by far the most advanced. However, its "BN-800" reactor, which began operating in 2014, is so uninspiring that they abstain from deploying any of them, preferring the classic "VVER" (non-breeder) models, and its planned successor, named "BN-1200M," has been postponed to 2035.

This doesn't represent an abandonment of breeder reactors, as this nation is actively exploring another avenue: the "BREST" architecture (lead coolant rather than sodium), with a small demonstration reactor (300 MW) whose construction began in 2021, essentially "back to square one."
by jraph | 2026-01-23 12:13:44+00:00
> Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful

We agree. People have different ways of thinking and interacting. Maybe that asker-vs-guesser thing made you / others realize that (and that's good! Possibly it made me realize that too, although having a flatmate years before had already done the trick tbh), but we didn't need it to know this.

> there clearly is a stark divide in behavior

How are you sure it's not confirmation bias [1]? When you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. When you have an asker-guesser theory, everybody look like askers and guessers, including yourself.

Odds are it is most likely, in fact, confirmation bias, since that theory was found to be unsubstantiated and underdeveloped, and since this is a sexy topic, it's hard to believe nobody tried to validate it rigorously (and the way scientific publishing is currently organized sadly doesn't encourage publishing negative results).

> Why not?

Because apparently, from what we actually know (robust, established knowledge), there's no good reason to think the following is actually true, even if it strongly feels like it for a host of reasons, which is my whole concern:

> this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another

It's too easy to pick two half convincing categories that feel somewhat opposite and have the feeling that these two categories provide insight on how people work. Such theories are sugar for the brain.

I'd be most happy to be proven wrong in the future though! In the meantime, I'll pick cautiousness.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
by qaz_plm | 2026-01-23 12:13:45+00:00
“Investors including the software giant Oracle; MGX, an Emirati investment firm; and Silver Lake, another investment firm, will own more than 80 percent of the new venture. That list also includes the personal investment entity for Michael Dell, the tech billionaire behind Dell Technologies, and other firms, TikTok said. Adam Presser, TikTok’s former head of operations, will be the chief executive for the U.S. TikTok”
by sylware | 2026-01-23 12:13:52+00:00
Stop engaging in bad faith please, it is not what I said.

You are asking the wrong people, ask the the AT-SPI/ATK and GUI toolkit people to design the required interfaces (leveraging the dynamicity of wayland or some other custom and simple protocols perhaps) and to devel/maintain the required complexity for those interfaces to work.

Those interfaces are beyond instrusive which defeats client application isolation and compositor independance of niche complexity which is a corner stone of wayland. That's why those complex compositors (or "modules" of some huge compositors) will be on demand only (and they are highways for malware and spyware).
by latexr | 2026-01-23 12:14:04+00:00
I think you’re missing the point. Of course you can make such a product. As Steve says right after, he himself made that mistake a lot. The point is that to make something great (at several levels of great, not just “makes money”) you have to start with the need and build a solution, not have a solution and shoehorn it to a need.

The internet is an entirely different beast and does not at all support your point. What we have on the web is hacks on top of hacks. It was not built to do all the things we push it to do, and if you understand where to look, it shows.
by jfindley | 2026-01-23 12:14:28+00:00
Unfortunately the index is the easy part. Transforming user input into a series of tokens which get used to rank possible matches and return the top N, based on likely relevence, is the hard part and I'm afraid this doesn't appear to do an acceptable job with any of the queries I tested.

There's a reason Google became so popular as quickly as it did. It's even harder to compete in this space nowadays, as the volume of junk and SEO spam is many orders of magnitude worse as a percentage of the corpus than it was back then.
Mental sundhed og personlig trivsel
by Aksel-Louis | 2026-01-23 12:15:21+00:00
Jeg har delt et nyt indlæg om, hvorfor det at prioritere mental sundhed er en vigtig investering i både personlig vækst og livskvalitet. Indlægget sætter fokus på bevidste valg, trivsel og langsigtet velvære.
by touisteur | 2026-01-23 12:15:26+00:00
That's my experience as well, after monitoring frequency and temp on lots of kernel on all the spectrum from memory-bound, to L2-bound to compute-bound. Hard to reach the 600W with memory-bound kernel. TensorRT manages it somehow with some small to mid networks but perf increase seems capped around 10% too even with all the magic inside.
by ionwake | 2026-01-23 12:15:39+00:00
TBH Im not sure if this is a "growing up in a good area" vibe. But over the last decade or so I have had to slowly learn the people around me have no sense of shame. This wasnt their fault, but mine. Society has changed and if you don't adapt you'll end up confused and abused.

I am not saying one has to lose their shame, but at best, understand it.
by ricardo81 | 2026-01-23 12:16:25+00:00
There's one great example of a company that did that and managed to go viral on their release, Cuil. They claimed to have a Google size of search index. Unfortunately for them their search results weren't good and so that visibility quickly disappeared.

Going further back, AlltheWeb was actually pretty decent but was eventually bought by Overture and then Yahoo and ended up in their graveyard.

For everyone else it's the longer grind trying to gain visibility.
by aristofun | 2026-01-23 12:17:56+00:00
Build a career or build a business.

Nothing new under the moon in the last few centuries. There is no magic pill or secret ingredient.

Each path has its trade offs.

I’ve tried both. Reaching 10k in software engineering salary took longer but easier and more predictable. My first profitable business attempt was a tiny bootcamp school (about software engineering obviously) and it never reached 10k of my own income due to lack of business experience and motivation.

Choose a field where 1. There is enough capacity to reach the number with just a hard work (software engineering, finance, law, real estate etc)

2. You feel comfortable and genuinely longterm interested in (most important criteria).

What else do you expect to hear on a forum like this?

I bet LLM would give you similar answer :)
by gnosis67 | 2026-01-23 12:18:18+00:00
Okay soldier, can you tell you are not alone in your own mind, and that American Thought Control is running an extortion racket on the United States Military?

Can you tell Bannon looted the intelligence community and exposed the envelope of every clandestine military secret by getting Trump to gather all of those commanders into one room?

You’re screwed and you don’t even know it.
by ninkendo | 2026-01-23 12:18:36+00:00
That’s what we should do, yes. The problem is that we were just sorta careless with interleaving database calls in with the “work” we were doing. So that function that calls that slow external service, also takes a &PgConnection as an argument, because it wants to bump a timestamp in a table somewhere after the call is complete. Which means you need to already have a connection open to even call that function, etc etc.

If the codebase is large, and full of that kind of pattern (interleaving db writes with other work), the compiler plugin is nice for (a) giving you a TODO list of all the places you’re doing it wrong, and (b) preventing any new code from doing this while you’re fixing all the existing cases.

One idea was to bulk-replace everything so that we pass a reference to the pool itself around, instead of a checked-out connection/transaction, and then we would only use a connection for each query on-demand, but that’s dangerous… some of these functions are doing writes, and you may be relying on transaction rollback behavior if something fails. So if you were doing 3 pieces of “work” with a single db transaction before, and the third one failed, the transaction was getting rolled back for all 3. But if you split that into 3 different short-lived connections, now only the last of the 3 db operations is rolled back. So you can’t just find/replace, you need to go through and consider how to re-order the code so that the database calls happen “logically last”, but are still grouped together into a single transaction as before, to avoid subtle consistency bugs.
by beowulfey | 2026-01-23 12:18:51+00:00
As with anything, it is about trusting your tools. Who is culpable for such errors? In the days of human authors, the person writing the text is responsible for not making these errors. When AI does the writing, the person whose name is on the paper should still be responsible—but do they know that? Do they realize the responsibility they are shouldering when they use these AI tools? I think many times they do not; we implicitly trust the outputs of these tools, and the dangers of that are not made clear.
by amiga386 | 2026-01-23 12:19:07+00:00
... provided you own land that the government allows for agricultural use. And most people can't afford to own enough land to be self-sufficient.

So you're not free to grow your own vegetables either; just like fishing, farming is regulated to manage limited resources. Things get ugly fast when you start raising pigs in your city apartment, or start polluting with pesticide runoff, or start diverting your neighbour's water supply...
by shevy-java | 2026-01-23 12:19:10+00:00
Google has consistently ruined its search engine in the
last (almost) 10 years. You can find numerous articles
about this, as well as videos on youtube (which is also
controlled by google).

Not long ago they ruined ublock origin (for chrome; ublock origin
lite is nowhere near as good and effective, from my own experience
here).

Now Google is also committing towards more evil and trying to
ruin things for more - people, competitors, you name it. We
can not allow Google to continue on its wiched path here. It'll
just further erode the quality. There is a reason why "killed
by google" is more than a mere meme - a graveyard of things killed
by google.

We need alternatives, viable ones, for ALL Google services. Let's
all work to make this world better - a place without Google.
by neves | 2026-01-23 12:19:28+00:00
I'm surprised by these results. I would have expected non-Anglo-American universities to rank at the top of the list. One of the most valuable features of LLMs from the beginning has been their ability to improve written language. This is particularly beneficial for non-English-speaking researchers in preventing language-related biases. However, the list shows that LLM usage is more intensive in the English-speaking world. Why?
by nobodywillobsrv | 2026-01-23 12:20:08+00:00
I would imagine there are a lot of "small nice to haves" that people submit because they are frustrated about the mere complexity of submitting changes. Minor things that involve a lot of complexity merely in terms of changing some config or some default etc. Something where there is a significant probability of it being wrong but also a high probability of someone who knows the project being able to quickly see if it's ok or not.

i.e. imagine a change that is literally a small diff, that is easy to describe as a mere user and not a developer, and that requires quite a lot of deep understanding merely to submit as a PR (build the project! run the tests! write the template for the PR!).

Really a lot of this stuff ends up being a kind of failure mode of various projects that we all fall into at some point where "config" is in the code and what could be a simple change and test required a lot of friction.

Obviously not all submissions are going to be like this but I think I've tried a few little ones like that where I would normally just leave whatever annoyance I have alone but think "hey maybe it's 10 min faff with AI and a PR".

The structure of the project incentives kind of creates this. Increasing cost to contribution is a valid strategy of course, but from a holistic project point of view it is not always a good one especially assuming you are not dealing with adversarial contributors but only slightly incompetent ones.
Show HN: Shopify metaobject and metafields duplicator app
by viikka | 2026-01-23 12:20:37+00:00
I kept running into the same frustration while managing Shopify stores: recreating metaobjects and metafields manually every time I launched a new product or store. It’s tedious and error-prone.

So I built MetaClone, a small app that lets you duplicate metaobjects & metafields instantly, preserving structure and settings.

I’d love feedback from anyone who works with Shopify custom data or multi-store setups.
by otherme123 | 2026-01-23 12:20:39+00:00
> they will likely collapse suddenly

In Europe it seems that instead of sudden collapse (1-2 years), they are phasing out (10-20 years). The mix in Spain was nuclear, gas, coal, hidro and fuel a couple of decades ago. Coal was phased out, plants closed by the producers. Fuel almost gone. Gas still important, but nuclear is static and thus has less % of the mix as total output is higher. A lot of new sources are now present in the grid: solar FV, thermal solar, eolic, batteries, reverse pumping and residue burning.

5 years ago (notice the brown band at 5%, coal): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad...

Today (coal is gone): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad...
by tialaramex | 2026-01-23 12:20:58+00:00
In a language like Rust where local variables are explicitly destroyed when scope ends a naive TCO is very annoying and `become` also helps fix that.

Suppose I have a recursive function f(n: u8) where f(0) is 0 and otherwise f(n) is n * bar(n) + f(n-1)

I might well write that with a local temporary to calculate bar(n) and then we do the sum, but this would inhibit TCO because that temporary should exist after we did the recursive calculation, even though it doesn't matter in practice.

A compiler could try to cleverly figure out whether it matters and destroy that local temporary earlier then apply TCO, but now your TCO is fragile because a seemingly minor code change might fool that "clever" logic, by ensuring it isn't correct to make this change and breaking your optimisation.

The `become` keyword is a claim by the programmer that we can drop all these locals and do TCO. So because the programmer claimed this should work they're giving the compiler permission to attempt the early drop and if it doesn't work and can't be TCO then complain that the program is wrong.
by glebasp | 2026-01-23 12:21:35+00:00
My Nokia C2-01 purchased in 2013 worked for many years without a single (!) glitch. Of course it didn't pretend to do as many things as iPhone does, but for it was capable of it worked always with 100% quality.

I bought an iPhone13 mini looking forward for "quality", but after few years of usage I realized that the quality is exactly what I have lost:

• Time-to-time when I open a contact, the "Call" button is disabled without any explanation. Surprisingly turning wifi and/or bluetooth and/or mobile data ON and then OFF again results in the "Call" button becoming re-enabled. Is the call function not an essential functionality of the phone to be dependent on such nonsense? Imagine you have an emergency and need to call real quick.
• Every time I open the "Notes" app it greets me with "Mobile Data is Turned Off" pop-up. Mobile data just to type some notes? Who do you have to send it to?
• DND logic so complicated and buggy that I started using the flight mode to be "sure" that nobody calls through.
• "Settings" icon keeps displaying the "1" badge in revenge for my refusal to set up my Face ID.

Well, I thought, at least this thing is a very good camera (which it really is). As if reading my thoughts, it started recording my landscape videos as portrait which I didn't manage to fix, so now I have to rotate the recorded videos on my PC.
by donatj | 2026-01-23 12:21:39+00:00
Oh, hmm... I must be an asker.

I've done a lifetime of code review over the last decade. Let me tell you, the number times I have asked what I assumed were simple yes/no questions like "Would it make sense to do X?" or even "Why did we do it this way?" in cases where I'm looking for a discussion and it's been taken as a call to action is just wild.

They're competent developers, I just want to understand the code and the context behind it. I want to understand what their thoughts were while building it. Yet so many times a simple question like "Why X and not Y?" results in the person whose code I am reviewing going ahead and refactoring the entire PR without return comment, or in rare cases getting angry with the question. We actually had a DBA with a history of flying off the handle over simple questions but from what I've heard this is common among DBAs? He eventually got let go over it.

If I wanted you to change it, I would have said so. My question is not wrapped up in insinuation or hidden intent. It's a question I want the answer to. There are no layers to the meaning. I basically never mean anything I do not explicitly say.

I have gotten so frustrated with this that I have started specifying "You can say no", "I'm just trying to understand the thought process", or "I'm just curious, no need to change it". Things I still feel like I shouldn't have to tell another person with an engineering mindset, especially someone with many years of experience.
by senko | 2026-01-23 12:22:05+00:00
On a tangent: the origin of the problems with low-quality drive-by requests is github's social nature. That might have been great when GitHub started, but nowadays many use it as portfolio padding and/or social proof.

"This person contributed to a lot of projects" heuristic for "they're a good and passionate developer" means people will increasingly game this using low-quality submissions. This has been happening to the fire.

Of course, AI just added kerosene to the fire, but re-read the policy and omit AI and it still makes sense!

A long term fix for this is to remove the incentive. Paradoxically, AI might help here because this can so trivially be gamed that it's obvious it's not longer any kind of signal.