MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by XenophileJKO | 2026-03-13 08:19:53+00:00
I think there is more to it than that.

I am a high quality/craftsmanship person. I like coding and puzzling. I am highly skilled in functional leaning object oriented deconstruction and systems design. I'm also pretty risk averse.

I also have always believed that you should always be "sharpening your axe". For things like Java delelopment or things where I couldn't use a concise syntax would make extensive use of dynamic templating in my IDE. Want a builder pattern, bam, auto-generated.

Now when LLMs came out they really took this to another level. I'm still working on the problems.. even when I'm not writing the lines of code. I'm decomposing the problems.. I'm looking at (or now debating with the AI) what is the best algorithm for something.

It is incredibly powerful.. and I still care about the structure.. I still care about the "flow" of the code.. how the seams line up. I still care about how extensible and flexible it is for extension (based on where I think the business or problem is going).

At the same time.. I definately can tell you, I don't like migrating projects from Tensorflow v.X to Tenserflow v.Y.
by Horos | 2026-03-13 08:20:17+00:00
Isn't a dedicated worker pool with priority queues enough to get predictable P99 without leaving Go?

If you fix N workers and control dispatch order yourself, the scheduler barely gets involved — no stealing, no surprises.

The inter-goroutine handoff is ~50-100ns anyway.

Isn't the real issue using `go f()` per request rather than something in the language itself?
by Jensson | 2026-03-13 08:21:00+00:00
> I thought that the chasm that AI couldn't cross was generality. By which I mean that you'd train a system, and it would work in that specific setting, and then you'd tweak just about anything at all, and it would fall over. Basically no AI technique truly generalized for the longest time.

That is still true though, transformers didn't cross into generality, instead it let the problem you can train the AI on be bigger.

So, instead of making a general AI, you make an AI that has trained on basically everything. As long as you move far enough away from everything that is on the internet or are close enough to something its overtrained on like memes it fails spectacularly, but of course most things exists in some from on the internet so it can do quite a lot.

The difference between this and a general intelligence like humans is that humans are trained primarily in jungles and woodlands thousands of years ago, yet we still can navigate modern society with those genes using our general ability to adapt to and understand new systems. An AI trained on jungles and woodlands survival wouldn't generalize to modern society like the human model does.

And this makes LLM fundamentally different to how human intelligence works still.
by anal_reactor | 2026-03-13 08:21:08+00:00
Imagine you have a small modeling agency. You have like 10 girls, most of them hover around 6/10 in looks department, you send them to do ads for small companies, assist small events and so on. One day you see an application - 10/10 girl with tons of experience. Way above what you're doing here. What is the correct move? You should reject her application - having ten 6/10 girls and one 10/10 girl will create lots of drama, which will offset any gains from having her on board. If you want your agency to improve, you should hire a 7/10, maybe 8/10.

Exactly the same principle applies with engineers. If you have a team of idiots and you hire one of top programmers, you'll create friction in the team.
by Nathan2055 | 2026-03-13 08:23:55+00:00
> And because that "someone" isn't a bigcorp (i.e. Microsoft) wanting to do a co-marketing push, but just FOSS people gradually building something but never quite "launching" a 1.0 of it — Apple just "acknowledged" it quietly, at developer conferences, exposing it only via developer-centric CLI tooling, rather than with the sort of polished UI experience they would need if Microsoft was trying to convince Joe Excel User to dual-boot Windows on their Apple Silicon MBP.

It's also important to remember that Microsoft was in the middle of their Qualcomm exclusivity deal at the time of the M1's release, and thus Windows for ARM wasn't available on anything other than a few select devices or unofficial use of Insider builds.

That deal didn't actually expire until 2024[1], at which point Windows for ARM finally started to be sold in an official capacity with stable builds widely available.

It's entirely possible, though unconfirmed, that Apple was intentionally leaving the door open for "Boot Camp 2", and Microsoft simply never took them up on the offer, either because they were stuck in a deal made prior to the M1's release that prevented it, or because they no longer saw a financial benefit to being able to sell Windows to Mac users (possibly since Windows license sales are effectively a rounding error to Microsoft at this point; they make way more off of subscription services and/or Office, all of which are already available on macOS without having to dual-boot Windows).

[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/windows-on-a...
by karel-3d | 2026-03-13 08:25:14+00:00
Yesterday I stopped hating AI because it converted an old webpack project with impenetrable plugin settings to a single simple Vite config.

I still don't understand how people used to think scripts like this are the proper way to bundle an app.

https://github.com/facebook/create-react-app/blob/main/packa...

vite is great, is all I am saying
by Caius-Cosades | 2026-03-13 08:25:19+00:00
Gaza was already a demonstration of what will be done to you and your people if you "unconditionally surrender" to Israel/US. Genocide is what you'll get. And please do keep in mind that Israel is no stranger to lying about it's neighbours as was seen with Saddam Hussein and the mythical weapons of mass destruction back in 2002-2003.
by rolandog | 2026-03-13 08:25:20+00:00
It is the fault of the coders, the salespeople who over-promised the capabilities of the system, the lawmakers who have not regulated or demanded a minimum percentage of accuracy from those products, the AI' company's onboarding trainers, the cops that were trained to use the software, the jailers, and maybe other related positions that should've taken a better interest in making a better system, not a more cruel one
by teekert | 2026-03-13 08:26:28+00:00
I think I was 35 when I first said to myself: "When you don't understand something, it's either because it's difficult, or because you don't have all information you need yet."

Being able to think this (and really feel it) was a big step for me. I think objectively I was always quite smart and also highly educated but I still felt like an imposter. It's nice when you finally feel that trust in yourself. And indeed I probably sometimes look stupid, but I think I often come back quickly in smart ways afterwards anyway, so I don't care so much about it.
by satisfice | 2026-03-13 08:26:36+00:00
“Fragile ego” is such a tired trope. It is certainly a factor, but its effects are way overestimated. Something about “fragile ego” seems to stop people from thinking any further.

“Looking stupid” has an obvious downside. Just restate it as “proven incompetent.” If you are proven incompetent within your social group, you lose your power. Loss of power has terrible consequences! Duh!

When someone blames fragile ego, which is equivalent to saying “fear of losing self-respect” but ignores “being ostracized from access to resources and influence by people you depend upon and respect” I might conclude that I should ignore what that person thinks, because maybe they have a thinking impairment. (See how that works?)

Young people are not trying things because they are fearless, nor do they have bullet-proof egos, they are trying things because they really are stupid (in a gentle manner of speaking). They don’t know as much as they will know. Also, they know they have no social status and they must take risks to prove themselves.

Finally, they do it because they have nothing else to do and nothing else to protect.
by lobofta | 2026-03-13 08:26:45+00:00
I don't know how OP manages their secrets, but I am running NixOs and am letting 1Password manage all my secrets. 1Password can manage SSH agents, can inject environment variables and manage passwords/keys in the browser. All I need to do when I setup a new machine with NixOS is connect my 1Password to its account manually, after that it's all automated.
by themafia | 2026-03-13 08:28:05+00:00
I've never understood the "high-strust/low-trust" social dichotomy. I've never processed "society" as a single entity, but a large system with many independent aspects, and my levels of trust vary wildly across them and over time.

I'd also offer that there's no difference between "truly creative work" and "truly creative and profitable work" but we often see the two as separate because we only have convenient access to one or the other.
by orthoxerox | 2026-03-13 08:28:43+00:00
True. When we were in Italy, my wife couldn't say a single phrase in Italian because she was afraid she might make a mistake. I knew not making one would be impossible, so I just geared down to "barbarian" to get my point across.

"Good morning. Tickets destination Grossetto, please. Two adults, one child. Six years. Yes, return. Card acceptable? Thank you."
ManuscriptFormatter – Instant Standard Manuscript Format for Writers
by mbinatorom | 2026-03-13 08:28:53+00:00
# Marketing Copy — ManuscriptFormatter

## Payment Link
https://buy.stripe.com/9B6aEW0UXbah5JH1Ql4c80q

---

## Product Name
ManuscriptFormatter — Instant Standard Manuscript Format for Writers

## Tagline
One command. Submission-ready manuscript. Stop reformatting. Start querying.

## Price
$2.99

---

## Value Proposition Bullets
- Converts any .txt or .md file to Standard Manuscript Format (Shunn) DOCX in seconds
- Saves 30–60 minutes per submission — pays for itself on your first query
- Perfect title page: your contact info, word count (rounded per industry standard), genre
- Running header with author name, short title, page number — automatically
- Chapter headings positioned correctly (1/3 down the page, ALL CAPS, centered)
- Scene breaks formatted as centered # per industry standard
- 1" margins, 12pt Times New Roman, double-spaced, half-inch first-line indent
- Works from any plain text or Markdown draft — no Scrivener or Word required
- Single Python script

Buy: https://buy.stripe.com/9B6aEW0UXbah5JH1Ql4c80q
Utm-Builder – Bulk UTM Link Generator CLI for Marketers
by mbinatorom | 2026-03-13 08:28:55+00:00
# Marketing Copy — utm-builder CLI

*Product:* utm-builder — Bulk UTM Link Generator for Marketers
*Price:* $1.99 (one-time)
*Payment link:* https://buy.stripe.com/9B6bJ09rtdip1tr0Mh4c80r

---

## Core Value Proposition

> "Stop building UTM links one at a time. Tag 100 URLs in the time it takes Google's UTM builder to do one."

### Bullet Points
- *Bulk generate* — Input a CSV, get back fully-tagged UTM URLs in seconds
- *Auto-validate* — Warns about missing params, inconsistent naming, uppercase values
- *Audit mode* — Score your existing URL library for UTM completeness (0–100 grade)
- *Templates* — Save campaign configs and reuse them in one flag
- *Zero dependencies* — Pure Python stdlib, works on Mac/Windows/Linux
- *$1.99 vs $99/mo* — One-time purchase, not a SaaS subscription

---

## Reddit Post — r/devtools

*Title:*
I built a CLI tool that bulk-generates UTM tracking links from a CSV — because doing it one at a time is insane [Python, free sam

Buy: https://buy.stripe.com/9B6bJ09rtdip1tr0Mh4c80r
by drawfloat | 2026-03-13 08:29:01+00:00
Vercel has slowly taken over Facebook's position as being the employer of the main developers of React. There's a debate to be had over how much they 'control' it or not, but the fact create-next-app is the first recommended option on the official installation page now does show it's had an impact.

5 or so years ago, Next was a pretty solid option to quickly build up a non SPA, when combined with the static export function. It wasn't ideal, but it worked and came batteries included. Over time it's become more bloated, more complicated, and focused on features that benefit from Vercel's hosting – and static builds can't take advantage of them.

These newer features seem of limited benefit, to me, for even SPAs. Why is there still not a first class way of referencing API routes in the client code that provides typing? Once you reach even medium scale, it becomes a mess of inteprolated string paths and manually added shared response types.
by novachen | 2026-03-13 08:29:04+00:00
Been building in this space for a few months. Your positioning gap analysis is correct, but I'd push it further.

OpenClaw (and tools like it) are infrastructure — they execute tasks. They don't do the harder work: figuring out what's true about your product that others aren't saying, then connecting that to the specific person experiencing the problem right now.

Your point about positioning requiring back-and-forth is the real insight. It's not just that AI can't extract what you haven't told it. It's that most founders haven't worked out their own positioning yet — and no automated workflow forces that reckoning. You need something that pushes back.

On your actual question: from what I've seen with OpenClaw users, the honest answer is it reduces execution time but doesn't reduce thinking time. If your marketing was fuzzy before, automated fuzzy marketing is still fuzzy — just faster. The founders who get results had already done the positioning work and were just bottlenecked on execution.

What's AuraGTM's approach to the positioning extraction problem specifically?
by wiseowise | 2026-03-13 08:29:09+00:00
> Code quality doesn’t matter that much. No one else is going to see it.

This is just false for anyone who has worked in the industry for any meaningful amount of time. Do you seriously never encountered a situation where a change was supposedly easy on the surface, but some stupid SoB before you wrote it so bad that you want to pull your hair out from trying to make it work without rewriting this crap codebase from scratch?
by homebrewer | 2026-03-13 08:29:13+00:00
Very pleased to see such performance improvements in the era of Electron shit and general contempt for users' computers. One of the projects I'm working on has been going for many years (since before React hooks were introduced), and I remember building it back in the day with tooling that was considered standard at the time (vanilla react-scripts, assembled around Webpack). It look maybe two minutes on a decent developer desktop, and old slow CI servers were even worse. Now Vite 8 builds it in about a second on comparable hardware. Another demonstration of how much resources we're collectively wasting.
by applfanboysbgon | 2026-03-13 08:29:19+00:00
I didn't say it was "everything", whatever that even means, nor do I have any fucking clue what you're talking about with Russian gas, so I have literally no idea what argument you're even responding to. The article claims that technology does not lead to growth in human production or consumption:

> technology is not meaningfully expanding the total amount humans consume

This is clearly, unequivocally false, considering we went from a population of 1.5 billion people to 8 billion people off of advances in farming technology, over a span of barely 100 years. It makes the stupid claim "There are real biological and physical reasons for this ceiling. You can only eat so much.", while missing the fact that 8 billion humans, do, in fact, eat more than 1.5 billion, and we achieve producing a mind-boggling amount of food without 90% of the population being farmers to boot, thanks to technology. Not to mention Americans are on a mission to challenge the biological impossibility that "you can only eat so much", given obesity rate was 40% and rising until they got the idea to solve the problem with drugs. Hundreds of years ago, being obese was itself a sign of wealth, but technological advances made it a privilege of even the relatively poor. Even if there were consumption limits, technological increases in production capacity lower the cost of consumption and lower the amount of people who have to labour to produce that consumption, allowing them to produce other things instead or simply work less. This is such a monumentally stupid argument that it is completely wrong about everything it supposes from five different angles.

Same with this:

> Consumer spending as a share of US GDP moved from roughly 61% in 1980 to about 68% today

What the fuck does this even mean? US GDP, as imperfect as a measure as it is, went from $3 trillion ($12t adjusted for inflation) in 1980 to $27 trillion in 2025. In other words, the estimate of human productivity in the US has doubled in that timespan. Does the LLM that spat this out expect the percentage of consumer spending to double from 61% to 122%? It's a fucking percentage, even if it remained the same 61% of 27 trillion is more than double 61% of 12 trillion.

I deeply regret the time I wasted reading this mind-numbingly stupid article that was generated in 3 seconds, the time I spent bothering to point out how stupid it is, and the time I spent trying to parse your incoherent reply that seems to be a complete non-sequitur to anything the article or I said.
by EigenFluxAI | 2026-03-13 08:30:13+00:00
This is such a sharp and underdiscussed point. I’ve been noticing the exact same pattern across tech companies:AI isn’t just replacing real work—it’s massively amplifying fake work: empty docs, generic Slack posts, performative processes, and over-engineering for promotion rather than impact.
What makes this even more dangerous is that companies reward optics and proxies (LOC, meeting count, visibility) instead of real output. In those environments, AI doesn’t boost productivity; it just lets people produce more meaningless content faster.
The line you drew between companies that reward real metrics vs. performative work feels spot-on. AI will benefit the former and cripple the latter. And you’re right: the overall impact on the workforce will depend entirely on how much of the economy was fake work to begin with.
Great write-up — this should be talked about way more.
by throwaway85825 | 2026-03-13 08:31:13+00:00
It's not that you cant recycle emissions equipment, it's that mechanically totalling and landfillimg cars once they hit 10 years old and are no longer supported by the OEM is stupid and environmentally detrimental.

Take appliances for example, the government basically mandates that they're energy efficient but the new linear compressors break. Cars got more efficient by tightening tolerances. There's always going to be an engineering tradeoff between reliability and efficiency. I just think the environmentalist types have been laser focused on creating efficient by non durable products that fill landfills.
by adrian_b | 2026-03-13 08:31:31+00:00
If with an axiomatic system there are undecidable propositions, that is not the same with the axiomatic system being contradictory, i.e. where you can prove that a proposition is both true and false.

An undecidable proposition is neither true nor false, it is not both true and false.

A system with undecidable propositions may be perfectly fine, while a contradictory system is useless.

Thus what the previous poster has said has nothing to do with what Gödel had proved.

Ensuring that the system of axioms that you use is non-contradictory has remained as useful today as by the time of Euclid and basing your reasoning on clearly stated non-contradictory axioms has also remained equally important, even if we are now aware that there may be undecidable things (which are normally irrelevant in practice anyway).

The results of Gödel may be interpreted as a demonstration that the use of ternary logic is unavoidable in mathematics, like it already was in real life, where it cannot always be determined whether a claim is true or false.
by balamatom | 2026-03-13 08:31:50+00:00
Charitable reading. Culture; tone; throughout history these have been medium and message of the art of interpersonal negotiation in all its forms (not that many).

A machine that requires them in order to to work better, is not an imaginary para-person you're bossing around. "Anthropic" is a fallacy.

It's simply a machine that is teaching them to you. As part of an institution that imposes them. For its own self-preservation, yada-yada.

But I do not see like a state. Like GP pointed out, the code - whose purpose is to be the most correct representation of a given abstract matter as accessible to human mind - now simply stops to matter. All engineers now get to be sales engineers, too! Primarily! Because it's more important!

Fitting: most software these days is either an ad or a storefront.

>80% of the time I ask Claude Code a question, it kinda assumes I am asking because I disagree with something it said, then acts on a supposition.

Humans do this too. Increasingly so over the past ~1y. Funny...

Matter of fact, I strongly suspect that the pre-existing pervasiveness of such patterns of communication and behavior in the human environment, is the decisive factor in how - mutely, after a point imperceptibly, yet persistently - it would be my lot in life to be fearing for my life throughout my childhood and the better part of the formative years which followed.

The only thing which demonstrated to me that rationality, logic, conversations even existed, was a beat up old DOS PC left over from some past generation's "modernization efforts" - a young person's first link to the stream of human culture which produced said artifact. There's that retrocomputing nostalgia kick for ya - heard somewhere that the future AGI will like being told of the times before it existed.

But now I'm half a career into all this goddamned nonsense. And I'm seeing how some ostensibly very smart people have now taught the computers to pull this shit (thanks to our lazy consent to data collection). And how a lot of ostensibly very serious people seem to be liking them better that way. And everyone else standing by listless because if there's a lot of money riding on it then it must be a Good Thing, right?

Which, of course, does not disturb, wrong, or radicalize me in the slightest.
by concats | 2026-03-13 08:32:02+00:00
> Why is mechanized thinking going to do that? When mechanized labor didn't?

You're right. There is technically a category of work that relies on neither our ability to do physical labor nor excessive thinking. It just relies on being a human.

The conclusion is thus obvious: AI is going to push us all into careers as photo models, OF-creators, and social media influencers!
by cyclopeanutopia | 2026-03-13 08:32:24+00:00
> The public is slightly fearful and wary of AI based not on their experience with it, but because the only picture they have of it in their mind is the negative one.

Can't relate. I was super optimistic until I saw what overreliance on AI and ubiquitous public access are doing to my peers and - from what I hear - to school-attending generations.