MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dkechag | 2026-03-08 00:35:35+00:00
Not sure you opened the blog post. The scaling is atrocious, even for tasks that should be extremely parallelizable. The Geekbench "Text Processing" benchmark supposedly processes 190 markdown files, and yet it tops at just 1.34x the single-thread performance when you have 4 cores, and it drops with more cores! I admit my expertise is algorithms & optimization so I may get more easily incensed by inept developers, but this is crazy... It is not realistic in any way, unless we assume the "real world" is just js beginners scribbling code for a website...
by vladdoster | 2026-03-08 00:35:38+00:00
Location: Nashville, TN
Remote: true
Willing to relocate: boston || nashville
Technologies: Python, Django, IaC, Terraform, Golang, CI/CD, Azure/AWS, {ba,z}sh, Lua, Springboot,
Redis, Docker, Open Service Broker, {,non}relational & vector dbs, shared services, SOA
Email: mvdoster@gmail.com

resume: https://linkedin.vdoster.com && http://github.com/vladdoster

sr. cloud software engineer @ Mastercard (5 years)

Designed and built Platform-as-a-Service for microservice workloads running on Azure and AWS
to migrate on-prem workloads to the cloud. The platform operates globally, allowing teams to
deploy to several Azure-backed regions worldwide. Helped plan and create regional landing zones
in Azure for application teams wanting to perform globally. Designed platform components using
Terraform, Go, and Node; developed support tooling using Bash, Python, and Azure CLI. De-risk the
platform by addressing security vulnerabilities and ensuring the platform is PCI compliant.

api/devops software engineer @ Harvard Medical School (2 years)

Worked as part of the DevOps team to manage a 15k core CentOS HPC cluster. Designed and implemented
Python-based security scanning pipeline to securely deploy & run Apptainer images via SLURM.
Coordinated cross-team emergency patching eﬀorts. Collaborated with researchers and engineers across
3-letter institutions to deliver secure research infrastructure. Built CI/CD Pipelines with GitHub, Jenkins,
to automate code builds, testing, and deployments. Wrote Puppet modules to manage configuration of HPC fleet.
Wrote custom Puppet module & Python scripts to automatically remediate Tenable findings.

full-stack software engineer @ Global Prior Art (3 years)

Used Django, Celery, Selenium grid, and AWS API Gateway for IP rotation to scrape USPTO patent PDFs,
apply CV for data extraction, and generate reports with relevant claims, saving employees 4-5 hours daily.
Wrote E2E black-box/fuzzing unit tests. Automated on-premise deployment via Github Actions and Ansible.

maintainer @ Zinit (5 years)

Develop and maintain a zsh plugin manager on Github with 4k stars. Implemented unit tests,
containerization, bug fixes, and new features.
See: https://github.com/zdharma-continuum/zinit

contributor @ Open-source documentation (5 years)

Contributed hundreds of documentation corrections and enhancements to 400+ open source projects.
by FarmerPotato | 2026-03-08 00:35:51+00:00
Unfortunately, evangelicals have been pushing this interpretation since the 1980s, at least. Many of them voted for Reagan. In my circle of family and friends, several of them were military or contractors with secret-level clearances, ie serious people.

When I read this, I just thought "Oh so its metastasized now."

Those among them who voted for Trump in 2016 hoped for the end times. The whole thing about Trump being "anointed by God to use as he did King Saul" was mainstream in mega-churches at that time. Combine that with decades of recitals that the End Times would be near when Israel's capital moved to Jerusalem (Trump proclaimed that as a handout to evangelicals) and all the nations would come to Megiddo to do battle... this is a well-trodden story.
by scoofy | 2026-03-08 00:35:55+00:00
The “this wrecked my industry” sob story is especially rich when the vast majority of tech workers ability to demand premium salaries comes directly from creating software that makes existing jobs obsolete.

Let’s talk about the industries the computer killed: travel agents, musician, the entire film development industry, local newspapers built on classified ads, the encyclopedia industry, phone operators, projectionists, physical media industries, and a few dozen other random industries.

We aren’t special because we are coders. Creativity and engineering thoughtfulness will still exist even with LLMs, it will just take a different form.
by adeon | 2026-03-08 00:36:12+00:00
I get the vibe that it's more like there's unexpected complexity and it's difficult to be confident you know how zipcodes work with enough detail to make the feature work. And that is just one example of possible complexity.

Do zipcodes change for example? Can your drop-down quickly go out-of-date? You'd need a way to manually enter a city so people are able to tell the system an address. Do you want to bother making an auto-updating zipcode feature just for a form?

Is it going to confuse people because nobody else has bothered to make this superfancy selection feature thing?

Is this USA only? There are postal codes/zipcode-equivalents in other countries.

It starts to feel it's likely not worth the time and effort to try to be smart about this particular feature. At least not if I'm imagining this us some generic, universal address web form that is supposed to be usable for USA-sized areas.

To me it feels similar to that famous article about what you can and cannot assume about people's names; turns out they can be way more complicated and weird than one might assume.

Although maybe zipcodes don't really go that deep in complexity. But on the spot I would not dare to assume they are.
by panny | 2026-03-08 00:36:31+00:00
>I’m not sure why you’re bringing up LLMs at all.

Because lawyer types don't seem to understand they need us to write this for them and we can just say no.

>If your local law says that your software needs to obey some law, then it has to, and that’s that.

No, how it works is I continue writing free software and you're welcome to continue not using it. Take me to court with your law, and then be ready to pay legal fees and damages when I win because the law isn't constitutional on multiple grounds.
by Aurornis | 2026-03-08 00:36:35+00:00
> I did my research in goodreads and started reading a trilogy that was highly rated. Holy crap it was so bad a quit about halfway through the second book. I went back to goodreads and the rating since my last visit had dropped drastically. A bot campaign or something fooled me, I guess.

Sites like Goodreads and Rotten Tomatoes are targeted by marketing firms.

Every popular outlet that become a proxy for reviews gets targeted. The New York Times best seller list has been gamed for decades by publishers who will mass-purchase their own books to get on to the list.

When getting a high score on Product Hunt was viewed as impressive it was standard practice for startups to have all of their friends and family register accounts and then have everyone spam their LinkedIn to beg for Product Hunt upvotes in a coordinated campaign. Now you can just buy Product Hunt upvotes for negligible prices from people in other countries who maintain hoards of sock puppet accounts. Anyone who posts to Product Hunt gets DMs from these companies offering their services. Nobody takes Product Hunt seriously now.
by tern | 2026-03-08 00:37:57+00:00
Honestly, based on where this is going, I suspect we might agree more than it appears in this short exchange.

As for the point about complexity, I will meditate on it.

My first cut is that what you're getting at is something like: you're using "complexity" in the technical sense of the word, in which case we're in the realm of so-called "wicked problems" and such. There is some kind of 'making sense' that goes beyond 'mere ideas,' or at the very least something like "throw more minds and hands at the problem," in this context, is the wrong attitude.

In such a world, a machine that amplifies human effort (while obscuring it) is not the right tool for the job—more than likely you find yourself spinning around an attractor basin.

I personally have a tentative conclusion that I specifically am able to avoid this by amplifying certain strategies I've developed over my life, but really, I don't have solid confirmation yet.

In any event, I'm enjoying the experiment, but I'll reflect on why you seem to be certain about it.
by codingdave | 2026-03-08 00:38:24+00:00
No, that sounds like what consultants would do on an integration project, but not at all how software development works. Sure, you call APIs - after you write them. Which comes after you define what connections are needed between various layers of the system, which odds are you are also writing.

Saying that most software development is done by calling APIs is like saying that most driving of cars is done by moving your hands to the left and the right. Sure, that is an important piece of what is going on, but it really misses the bigger picture.
by scottlamb | 2026-03-08 00:38:58+00:00
Great. Pretty sure jen20 did too; they are replying to a comment pointing out the article is wrong and suggesting a compromise between the web default "enter all your address, then the zipcode" and the article's "you don't ever need to touch the country, state, or city fields" that is closer to working beyond the US. In that context, I find it strange and rude that you're suggesting they didn't read the article.
by sghaz | 2026-03-08 00:39:03+00:00
The ZIP-first approach assumes a postal code can deterministically resolve the rest of the address, which is rarely true in practice since many codes map to multiple cities or large geographic areas. Making it reliable requires maintaining comprehensive, frequently updated postal datasets or integrating with external geocoding services, which introduces non-trivial operational complexity. Additionally, deviating from standard address field ordering can work against established user expectations and may degrade usability rather than improve it.
by johnfn | 2026-03-08 00:39:09+00:00
This looks really nice, but I suppose I might ask the hard questions - how does this compare to Obsidian, which is my go-to "notes app which is just a bunch of markdown files stored to your computer"? I very much like Obsidian, and as I understand it they are your direct competitor, so some indication of how you want to distinguish your app from theirs would be great if you want to compel me to switch. :)

> Every feature we didn't build is time you spend writing.

Also, I feel that this kind of marketing language rubs me the wrong way (perhaps also that it feels LLM-ish). How is you not adding features saving me time? Maybe it saves you time...
by wmf | 2026-03-08 00:43:19+00:00
AMD has 16 cores, Apple has 18, Qualcomm has 18, Nvidia N1X has 20, and Intel has 24. All else being equal you actually want as few cores as you can get away with because that's less likely to be limited by Amdahl's Law. Arguably Intel/Nvidia CPUs are poorly designed and benchmarks have no obligation to accommodate them.

(I'm not counting high-end workstation/server CPUs because, as others in this thread have explained, Geekbench isn't intended for them.)
by mmooss | 2026-03-08 00:43:28+00:00
That makes some sense. Given the historic sometime scarcity of food and pressure of starvation, and the widespread availability of milk, I would think people would adapt to it.

I guess that lactose-intolerent people today would drink milk rather than starve - do they get zero nutrients from it? - and that evolution would select for those who could survive that way.
by rablackburn | 2026-03-08 00:43:43+00:00
Excellent self-owning example:

> You mean that dumb app that forced you to move files into a single folder instead of adapting to your workflow was prefect?

Users in 2012 were overwhelmingly of the cohort who's metaphor for doing work on a computer was the filesystem. You opened Files with Programs, worked on them, saved them. You wanted your latest Files on all your computers (1), and you wanted to Share them (2).

Unless users were on a system managed by a sysadmin there were only really two solutions for problems (1)&(2): you would Email the File (A), or you would copy it to a Floppy/CD/USB (B) and physically move it.

Note the caveat of "in absence of a sysadmin". So either on a school or corporate work environment, or if you happened to have a geek in your family/social group who did it as a passion project. Or y'know, if _you_ were the geek you could roll your own.

So of course when Dropbox was first introduced to a technical audience they didn't get it. See the infamous thread ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

While you're there, note the tag line in the title of the post "Throw away your USB key"

Now rereading your comment it is clearly an example of exactly what OP was referring to:

> It takes real courage for a builder to say, "It’s good enough. It’s complete. It serves the core use cases well." If people want more features? Great, make it a separate product under a new brand.

If Dropbox did not "adapt to your workflow", then just _don't use Dropbox_.

Instead you attack it as "dumb" and demand it change...and those users for whom Dropbox _was_ perfectly adapted don't have their solution anymore.

Software doesn't have to be forever changing and chasing user growth; it's not a zero-sum game. The bits don't care if no one uses them. But _people_ care if you take away their bits.

> ...we shouldn't normalize that, we should push for improvements

Agreed, you should create a new solution and put it out there! Just as suggested by the post you've replied to :)
by mitchellh | 2026-03-08 00:43:56+00:00
Im touched that “Ghostty but for X” is a marketing point but what does it mean in this case? I thought this might be based on the architecture I did for Ghostty. But it’s not. Or it might be full native UI, but it’s not (it’s GPUI). Not trying to be rude or unappreciative but as the creator of Ghostty here… what do you mean?
by basilikum | 2026-03-08 00:44:19+00:00
Identity theft: You have to verify your identity for the job, but in reality they trick you into handing over personal data, your SSN or id scans or completing some actual identity verification – that isn't just copying pixels or numbers – where you think you are verifying for the job offer, but in reality you complete the verification for e.g. opening a bank account in your name that they then control. Of course the identity verification service should check that you really know what you are verifying for, but that doesn't mean they actually do or the scammers might have some excuse to explain the discrepancy; like you get a job at a bank and to start working you have to open an account with them because salary or benefits get credited there. Helpfully they create the account for you and all you have to do is do the identity verification.

Variations of advance fee scams: Can be simple like you got a job but have to pay a fee to the head hunting agency that you'll get reimbursed on top of your first salary from your new employer of course, or more advanced: Your job involves buying products or services and testing or auditing them.

Money mules and laundering: As part of your job you have to forward money between your and external accounts. This is less obvious than the advance fee. You get the money first, you just don't know that you are funnelling the money from other scams to the scammers.

These things might seem easy to see through in theory, but they prey on desperate people in hardship. You believe to have finally found a job and all seems well during the onboarding process. Maybe it takes a little longer with a little back and forth or multiple interviews until you are emotionally invested into the job offering. Of course it seems weird that you have to pay out of your own pocket for a product you do QA testing for before you receive any money from them. But you have to deliver if you want to keep the job. After all they have many more options of applicants to choose from while for you this is the only job offer you got after months of searching.
by dashundchen | 2026-03-08 00:44:51+00:00
Can you explain what you're referring to about Power Forward Communities? As far as I can tell it's a network of established non profits like Habitat for Humanity and Rewiring America, it seems they did more than token work in things like electrification before their grant was rescinded.

The actual org itself acts as an umbrella to coordinate work among the participating non-profits.
by serf | 2026-03-08 00:45:21+00:00
one wonders why an 'inaudible signal' would affect microphones that are designed for human voice frequencies.

unless of course that inaudible signal is actually a high power laser to destroy the offender.. but i'm not comfortable wearing laser goggles everywhere.

thought : a gadget that says words in my exact tone intonation and style incessantly while I talk to throw the speech-to-text systems off via garbage injuection -- boy that'd be obnoxious to compete with in a conversation.

tl;dr : sounds like a new high priced ultra-sonic mouse deterrent.
by pottertheotter | 2026-03-08 00:45:50+00:00
I think you're thinking of the efficient-market hypothesis. The hypothesis is that prices reflect all available information, and "available information" is the key part. The "strong form" includes private information, but research has not found support for this. And even the "semi-strong form" falls apart. For instance, the market for small cap stocks is not as efficient as the market for large cap stocks.

You need a market that has enough people paying attention and doing the work, and you also need a market that has enough liquidity.

Source: I have a PhD in capital markets.
by wooptoo | 2026-03-08 00:46:17+00:00
The postcode doesn't tell the whole story. But what you can do is use an IP geolocation service which should narrow down your location enough, so that typing in the entire address is no longer necessary.

I.e. using something like https://ipinfo.io/json and then typing in a full postcode and street name + number should work well in most cases.
by rvz | 2026-03-08 00:46:33+00:00
There are no "principles" in big tech and I call bullshit on their reasoning.

OpenAI already had military contracts while this employee was at the company and there was no open letter last year about that.

Prior to that, they were at Meta and joined OpenAI after ChatGPT took off.

If they thought that AGI was about "principles" then not only they were naive, but it leads me to believe that they were only there for the RSUs, just like their time at Meta.

Why is it so hard to be honest and just say you were there for the money, fame and RSUs and not for so called "AGI"?
by lofatdairy | 2026-03-08 00:46:37+00:00
I mean its fair to say that its deliberately on the nose. However, I would argue that despite being definitionally correct, Palantir still represents a misinterpretation by discarding the works in their whole. I brought it up because postmodern does correctly imply a reaction to what is "modern", but its also a body of work in its own right.

This is not to say that Tolkien's authorial intent is final, nor necessarily discernible, but we are obligated to examine the palantirs' presentation as not just a passive object with certain, defined qualities, but as devices that have their own consequential histories within the narrative. Thiel naming his company after a tool presented textually as fallible, misleading, and myopic (in addition to its obvious power) with ostensibly no desire to attach such connotations to the company requires, in my mind, at least a superficial reading. We can even disregard the fact that these were mostly tools for an evil opposed by Tolkien, and not make the (valid) argument that their presentation within the text is could be considered direct argument in opposition to their creation. I personally think that to build a company and name it after a work that argues against that company's mission/purpose requires misinterpretation of the reference material, both in terms of poor comprehension of metaphor and as a poor response to the text and the body of discourse that surrounds and infuses it.
by gnat | 2026-03-08 00:47:30+00:00
I'm not trying to convert you, just want to share process tips that I see working for me and others. We're using agents, not a chat, because they can do complex work in pursuit of a goal.

1. Make artifacts. If you're doing research into a tech, or a hypothesis, then fire off subagents to explore different parts of the problem space, each reporting back into a doc. Then another agent synthesizes the docs into a conclusion/report.

2. Require citations. "Use these trusted sources. Cite trusted sources for each claim. Cite with enough context that it's clear your citations supports the claim, and refuse to cite if the citation doesn't support the claim."

3. Review. This lets you then fire off a subagent to review the synthesis. It can have its own prompt: look for confirming and disconfirming evidence, don't trust uncited claims. If you find it making conflation mistakes, figure out at what stage and why, and adjust your process to get in front of them.

4. Manage your context. LLM only has a fixed context size ("chat length") and facts & instructions at the front of that tend to be better hewn to than things at the end. Subagents are a way of managing that context to get more from a single run. Artifacts like notebooks or records of subagent output move content outside the context so you can pick up in a new session ("chat") and continue the work.

It's less fun that just having a chat with ChatGPT. I find that I get much better quality results using these techniques. Hope this helps! If you're not interested in doing this (too much like work, and you already have something that works), it's no skin off my nose. All the best!
by MadnessASAP | 2026-03-08 00:47:46+00:00
> Which I would find "cute" if the database contained an equal amount of reason. I am perennially irritated that "US/Pacific" which is an _official_ name of a time zone _as used_ by the relevant time keeping authority, is called "backwards."

This assumes that every point on earth has exactly 1 governing body and that a significant majority of the people agree on who that governing body is and that the governing body gives a rats ass about what time it is. Or that everyone in a region agrees on what time it is. Or that ccTLDs are sufficient to unambiguously cover the entire earths surface.

The time zone database isnt just a record of "official" decisions regarding time, it is a record of what time a population thinks it is. There are geographic overlaps, cultural overlaps, pants on head stupid overlaps. It exists to try and translate between somebody somewhere some when giving a time and date reference to any point in history to whatever time system the user may choose to believe in.

Your solution is insufficiently complex to solve a problem of this complexity.

https://gist.github.com/timvisee/fcda9bbdff88d45cc9061606b4b...