MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by EPWN3D | 2026-02-08 02:42:22+00:00
No one likes good code because it takes a lot of upfront time.

- PMs hate it because you're busy putting up scaffolding instead of painting

- Managers hate it because they have to cover for it

- Other engineers hate it because they could be doing it better

- VPs and directors hate it because they can't think beyond the release cycle, so the engineer is an architecture astronaut who should focus

There is basically no reward for actually putting thought into a programming solution anymore. The incentives are aligned against it unless you can get your manager to run interference for you.
by steveBK123 | 2026-02-08 02:42:29+00:00
$35/iPhone user is not “per corporate white collar worker”.

Think outside the coastal high paid SWE bubble and realize vast swathes of people use 5 year old phones on a $25/phone family mobile plan.

Retirees, youth, blue collar, lots of people who don’t want/need AI or wouldn’t fork out $140 for their family of 4 to access it.

$35/head is a pretty high bar if you compare to per capita total streaming subscriptions across music and movies across all providers for example.
by Bhonnegowda | 2026-02-08 02:42:38+00:00
If written business logic can become code at near-zero cost, people with good product sense can build without buying a big engineering org. That pressure shows up first in commodity SaaS getting repriced (already happening). Meanwhile hyperscalers are leaning harder into being the platform layer by making huge investments, because if apps are easier to create, the durable value shifts to infrastructure, operations, and distribution. Great times.
by AlotOfReading | 2026-02-08 02:42:47+00:00
If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.

Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.

> Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.

Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law. If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject:

The door handle does not need to be flush with the car body to be aerodynamically beneficial; it only needs to blend with the car body in the same way that the posts blend with the side glass.

This is after the section where it recommends flush, airplane style handles as optimal, because again the original claim is that the magnitude of the improvement is negligible.
by wesammikhail | 2026-02-08 02:42:49+00:00
How about you go pound sand? this is my experience, you dont like it? eff off.

Insulting? I dont give a shit. That´s my experience. I don't have to appreciate everything under the sun because someone made it. And linux adaption tells you that the vast majority of people agree with that when the FREE OS cant even muster reasonable enough market share. Stop with the fanboy bullcrap and grow up.

People like you piss me off to no end. Get off your high horse and do better if you care so much about the ecosystem. Otherwise put a sock in it and stop with your shitty tone.
by camillomiller | 2026-02-08 02:43:05+00:00
The zero cost argument is so hollow it’s got an echo.
The systems that allow this are notoriously underpriced, and yet nobody wants to confront the simple business logic that today’s free beer can’t and won’t last.
Elevating this phase as the normal state of LLM usage costs is plainly dumb and a terrible business take.
by transcriptase | 2026-02-08 02:45:17+00:00
How what vanished? The concerted effort to censor it on social media and dismiss it everywhere else as a hoax? 51 individuals in the “intelligence community” put their names to a letter saying it was Russian disinformation, which was used as evidence that it should be suppressed.

If you don’t realize now that you were lied to even though it’s trivial to confirm now that all the institutions that lied to you have since quietly issued retractions, corrections, or since wrote that they were misled…

Russia had 0 involvement. The laptop and all the controversial material and evidence of corruption on it were legitimate. Wanting to believe otherwise is doing yourself a disservice, even if it means conceding that those you disagree with aren’t always lying.
by anonymous908213 | 2026-02-08 02:45:45+00:00
I don't know how you can write down those numbers and come to the conclusion they sound reasonable at all. Corporations literally can't give this trash away for free without consumers being unhappy about it (eg. the Copilot malware infesting every aspect of Windows). ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat interface, when all potential applications for actually improving their lives are failing badly? I think you are out of touch with the finances of non-tech-indsutry workers if you think they will.
by rootusrootus | 2026-02-08 02:45:47+00:00
It's opaque, and limited. They buy the raws from China just like everyone else, then reconstitute them, fill vials, and drop them in the mail. They'll only provide a COA if you ask them to, and it will just be one basic mass/purity test most often.

In the gray market, there are multiple mass/purity tests for a batch (to look for variation in fill, mostly), as well as tests for endotoxins, sterility, heavy metals, and fentanyl. Rarely (maybe never; I have certainly never seen it) will a compounder do these additional tests and provide the results.

I think in general the well-known compounding pharmacies (e.g. Hallandale, BPI, couple others) are probably reputable enough to feel okay with. The mom & pop ones (or med spas) I'd be a lot more nervous about. Often ends up being someone who's just reconstituting vials in their living room, and maybe not with the quality controls you'd like to see.
by noodletheworld | 2026-02-08 02:46:33+00:00
> LLM can very easily verify this by generating its own sample api call and checking the response.

This is no different from having an LLM pair where the first does something and the second one reviews it to “make sure no hallucinations”.

Its not similar, its literally the same.

If you dont trust your model to do the correct thing (write code) why do you assert, arbitrarily, that doing some other thing (testing the code) is trust worthy?
by dwaite | 2026-02-08 02:46:34+00:00
It's important to understand the timeline of the Steve Jobs open letter on Adobe Flash - at that point the iPhone had been out just shy of three years, and before the first public betas on Android. So for nearly three years, Apple had been investing in HTML5 technology because Flash wasn't in a form where it was deployable.

Additionally, Flash required android phones with 256MB ram as a minimum (which would have precluded two of the three shipped iPhone models at the time) and at least initially only supported software video decoding. Because of the difference in screen dimensions, resolutions and interaction models (plus the issues with embedding due to RAM limitations), the website was still basically broken whether your mobile phone had Flash or not.

My understanding (based on the timing) was always that when Adobe was finally ready to push its partners to bundle mobile Flash, Apple looked at it and decided against it. Adobe made public statements against their partner and so Jobs did so in kind.
by spijdar | 2026-02-08 02:47:53+00:00
It's worth pointing out that Nim is going to cache all of the compilation up to the linking step. If you want to include the full compilation time, you'd need to add --forceBuild to the Nim compiler.

(Since a lot of the stuff you'd use this for doesn't change often, I don't think this invalidates the "point", since it makes "nim r" run very quickly, but still)

There's also the Nim interpreter built into the compiler, "NimScript", which can be invoked like:

#!/usr/bin/env -S nim e --hints:off
echo "Hello from Nim!"

The cool thing is that, without --forceBuild, Nim + TCC (as a linker) has a faster startup time than NimScript. But if you include compile time, NimScript wins.
by heliumtera | 2026-02-08 02:48:13+00:00
the last unsolved erdos problem proof generated by llms that hit the news was so non interesting that a paper published by erdos himself stated the proof

aaaaaaand no one cared enough to check

so i think the question is, are those interesting by themselves, or, are they just non interesting problems no one will ever care about except it would be indicative llms are good for solving complex novel problems that do not exists in their training set?
by hn_acker | 2026-02-08 02:48:22+00:00
I took issue with the specific example you used ("get a 50$ plane ticket and move straight to the Bay Area") because it was too reductive (and unsubstantiated) to represent "the realities of" the immigration system "of the time we live in" in a way that would let me "see why things need to change". I think you should have fleshed out your example or chosen a better one.
by z2 | 2026-02-08 02:49:06+00:00
I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!
by api | 2026-02-08 02:49:17+00:00
UBI doesn’t mean people don’t work. It means work is partially decoupled from basic needs.

People would work for two reasons. One is to make extra money and afford a lifestyle beyond what UBI provides. The second is to… do things that are meaningful. If people derive meaning from work then that’s why they’ll work.

Some people will just sit around on UBI. Those are the same people who sit around today on welfare or dead end bullshit jobs that don’t really produce much value.

I’m not totally sold on UBI but there’s a lot of shallow bad arguments against it that are pretty easy to dismiss.
by AlexAplin | 2026-02-08 02:49:31+00:00
I'm pretty forgiving about accessibility (I'm able to say this at all because I don't have to rely rigidly on accessibility tools) but nav menus feel like a baseline we shouldn't muck with. Tabbing doesn't seem to respond very well in the live example, and at least in the limited demo you can't expand the listing without using a mouse (I thought it would respond to a space with the :checked pseudo, but seems not).
by zachYCB | 2026-02-08 02:51:12+00:00
Is every forum just full of Reddit users complaining about le capitalism now?

It’s never been easier to make your own software. You don’t even need to know how to program. You don’t even need to buy an operating system. You need like $200 for a shitty laptop. People doing good and interesting work aren't reliant on these agents. People writing these posts aren’t outputting good software — let alone any software anyone actually cares about. Where’s the billion dollar game franchise written mostly by Claude? It doesn’t exist.
by chongli | 2026-02-08 02:51:37+00:00
I've put a lot of time into the Total War series. My favourite is probably Shogun 2. I will say that the combat is quite fun at first but once you learn ranged combat, artillery, and the "sweet spot" it falls apart.

Gets to the point where only defensive battles are any fun at all. Attacking just means you sweet spot your way to a flawless victory.

This exploit seems to be present in every TW game I've played, including Rome 2. It's totally ruined the series for me.
by anileated | 2026-02-08 02:52:27+00:00
The implication of "you have to have spent $1000 in tokens per engineer, or you have failed" is that you must fire any engineer who works fine by themselves or with other people and who doesn't require LLM crutch (at least if you don't want to be "failed" according to some random guy's opinion).

Getting rid of such naysayers is important for the industry.
by WarmWash | 2026-02-08 02:53:25+00:00
Not even factory work, classic engineering jobs in general. SWE sucked all the air out of the engineering room, because the pay/benefits/job prospects were just head and shoulders better.

We had a fresh out of school EE hire who left our company for an SWE position 6 months into his job with us, for a position that paid the same (plus full remote with a food stipend) as our Director of Engineering. A 23 yr old getting on offer above what a 54 yr old with 30 years experience was making.

For a few years there, you had to be an idi...making sub-optimal decisions, to choose anything other than becoming an techy.
by jgalt212 | 2026-02-08 02:53:46+00:00
> ChatGPT had 800m MAU at one report, but that's a chat interface and free. Do you really believe over half of those users are going to convert from "free" to paying $60/mo for access to the chat

Even if these things worked great for everyone, the percent of free uses who convert to paid users is low single digits per cent. For OpenAI to have any chance of breaking even in the consumer space, they need to develop an ad biz that makes around 20-25% of G does. That's a tall order in that G doesn't make good dough from search anymore as SERP page clicks are down 80% with AI summaries being good enough for most.
by cootsnuck | 2026-02-08 02:53:57+00:00
There's no "end" per se, but shifting dynamics. I personally think we are currently seeing a "slow", but noteworthy-in-hindsight, shift in interest and development of alternative options and platforms from the big tech monopolies. From things like Bluesky, Framework laptops, minimalist cell phones, and even smaller local language models and other types of useful local ML models.

I don't think it's going to be anything like 50% or even 30% of users using non-flagship hardware or software products. But it could still be significant. And I think the more important thing isn't going to be market share as much as proof of viability. More successful examples will beget more.

It's about planting seeds from which future digital ecosystems can grow -- that have interoperability, functionality, and openness built into their foundations.

I believe that what drove you to make this post and the way I feel is not unique and are part of a larger swell in similar sentiments.

You throw in other factors too like the mass tech layoffs and the continued doubling down of tech barons on their cravings to intermingle with the surveillance state and military industrial complex... I just can't see how the future doesn't have more people disillusioned with the current state of the tech industry.

I think big tech will continue to overplay their hand and the mess that comes after will be an opportunity to give people what they want and show alternatives to what's already been done that we know won't work out.
by PyWoody | 2026-02-08 02:54:49+00:00
I mean, obviously not? Why else would I miss it?

I was living in Bath, ME wherein I could walk to multiple bars and restaurants, a farmer's market, gym, two different grocery stores, as well as the town riverwalk. I currently live back in New Hampshire, and, while it's certainly rural, its more than just a "two bars and a gas station" town but its also a 20 minute drive to the closest grocery store, 15 minutes to the nearest gas station, 30 minutes to a hospital, etc.
by energy123 | 2026-02-08 02:55:18+00:00
Not at all. Some work is the combination of short duration, bottlenecking in nature, and serial.

Example: You're merging 3 branches, and there's a minor merge conflict.

You only need 15k tokens to fix it, so it's short duration. And it's bottlenecking. And it's a serial task.

This belongs on Cerebras or whatever.

Once fixed, go back to slower compute.
by estearum | 2026-02-08 02:55:22+00:00
Anyone can read about the requirements for Expanded Access/"compassionate use" here: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/expanded-access/expanded-acc...

IMO this all seems very reasonable.

What specifically do you think is problematic about this, and how do you propose that we mitigate companies from preying on desperate patients while making it easier for patients in need?
by thot_experiment | 2026-02-08 02:55:48+00:00
macOS seems cool in theory, but in practice it's not a "you own your computer" operating system so it's just a no go off the bat for me, i get it for people that just kinda stay in the center of the bell curve when it comes to computer use, but there's a 100% chance i'd end up in some situation where i'm fighting against apple's locked-down ness in approx 20minutes of owning a mac.

i'm fundamentally never going to accept a UX where i'm not absolute god of my computer, if i want to delete files crucial to my system's ability to function or run something with kernel level access to all my memory that's MY prerogative, i cannot imagine using a computer that doesn't listen to me
by abitsad | 2026-02-08 02:55:56+00:00
Congratulations.
Seems like we had the nearly same idea in short span of time.

I built something similar last week, with opus.
Okay, opus built it last weekend with 10 dollar on copilot-pro subscription.

And i was more than impressed.
I was pretty stunned in a positive way.

Made an app for pretty small models, that are now very capable of using kali and its software.

But its fully local, runs on windows, with 2-3 way smaller models, from 2b -8b.
They can use kali, about 60 or 70 tools atm.
Some Plugins.
I get a nice analysis, a report, suggestions...
They even tried to fix the issues when i asked asked them.
A chat, a lot quick action buttons and a live terminal/cli workspace, where you can see them working, their steps, as well as the commands the model used for the tools.
Fallback functions, if tools fail.
I wanted to see them using the cli.
It can load and use multiple models at once, and some more.

And yes, its weird that everybody can build, use, or handle such software now.
Even a no-coder like me, or like you say script kiddos.
That was the real scary part for me.

Runs on pretty slow and old hardware(8GB VRAM), so im not sure about the hardware wins the arms race.

I think its more like: better code, is not only smarter.
Its also mostly better, in making the older hardware more useful(again?).

Its not possible for me to get a claude pro plan at the moment, because i am not able to have, neither to use the payment methods, Anthropic has, because no actual ID.(Waiting since last year july, thank you germany)
This annoys me a bit, because i wanted to push it further, make it better...
Reached premium requests in copilot, now i have to wait a month.
(Pay as you go is not an option for me)

What a funny and exciting timeline, we live in.
by thomassmith65 | 2026-02-08 02:56:37+00:00
"For too long, this department has sent our best and brightest officers to Harvard, hoping the university would better understand and appreciate our warrior class," he said. "Instead, too many of our officers came back looking too much like Harvard — heads full of globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks."

The most shameful thing about Harvard is that Pete Hegseth went there.
by jatora | 2026-02-08 02:57:35+00:00
1. No, you dont get to fall back on the technical claim approach. Your bias in your phrasing was clear. Maybe that works for you but I won't just ignore obvious subtext and let you weasel out of this. And that's for the benefit of other readers, not you.

2. A plateau in coding performance? I don't think you even use these models for coding then if you make that claim. It is very clear models have continually improved. You can trust benchmarks to make that clear, or real world use, or better yet: both. You seem to not have the data from either.

3. No rigorous methods of filtering and curation that can separate AI slop from useful human output? Here you go:

a. Curation already works at scale.
Modern training pipelines don’t rely on “AI vs human” detection. They filter by utility signals: correctness, novelty, coherence, task success, citation integrity, and cross-source consistency. These measurable properties do correlate with downstream model performance. Models trained on smaller, higher-quality corpora consistently outperform those trained on larger, noisier ones.

b. Human-generated “valuable” data is not shrinking.
The claim assumes a fixed pool. In reality, high-value human data is expanding in areas that matter most: expert-labeled datasets, preference comparisons, multimodal demonstrations, tool-use traces, verified code with tests, and domain-expert feedback. These are explicitly created for training and are not polluted by passive AI spam.

c. Synthetic data is not a dead end—when constrained.
Empirically, filtered and goal-conditioned synthetic data (self-play, distillation, adversarial generation) improves reasoning, math, coding, and tool use. The failure mode is unfiltered synthetic recursion—not synthetic data per se. This distinction is already operationalized in production systems.

d. Training value ≠ raw text volume.
Scaling laws shifted: performance now tracks effective compute × data quality, not sheer token count. A smaller dataset with higher signal density produces better generalization than a massive, contaminated corpus. This is observed repeatedly in ablation studies.

----

Again, the above is not for you, as I believe you don't see beyond your cope (yet). It's for other readers who are intellectually curious.
by danshapiro | 2026-02-08 02:57:54+00:00
If you'd like to try this yourself, you can build an "attractor" by just pointing claude code at their llms.txt. Or if you'd like to save some tokens, you can clone my go version.
https://github.com/danshapiro/kilroy
This version has a Claude Code skill to help. Tell it to use it's skill to create a dotfile from your requirements. Then tell it to run that dotfile with kilroy.
by estearum | 2026-02-08 02:58:19+00:00
As they should.

The companies who bet several billions of dollars in literal decades of research on this stuff should absolutely be swimming in cash until the end of their days. Hims & Hers should be sued into oblivion for stealing the rewards of other companies' ingenuity, risk-taking, and dedication toward helping patients.

I am highly sympathetic to the argument that the government should just buy these patents and mass manufacture to increase availability, or just buy guarantee order vast amounts to scale up manufacturing and distribute cheaply, but the idea that a different private company ought to be able to profit in the way Hims & Hers has is absolutely flatly fucking insane.
by cthalupa | 2026-02-08 02:58:19+00:00
> does the batch lyophilization in the U

Nexaph does not lyophilize in the US despite Cain's claims - if you're buying from Nexaph, do so because they're popular and well tested by 3rd parties, but not off of anything they're saying about themselves. Hell, just go to the About page and you can find an artifact from back when Cain was lying about Nexaph being a chinese pharma company that had mRNA vaccine production experience.

That's also why the "presale" periods are cheaper - just letting them know how many vials to put in an order for.