MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by leptons | 2026-03-14 17:00:42+00:00
>Wire up authentication system with sso.

Simple npm install, all of it has already been distilled into dozens of similar repos. Just pick one, install it, and follow the simple use case. 5 minutes if we're in a race.

>done Setup websockets

If this takes you more than 5 minutes, then you're a shit developer.

>stream audio from mic

Again, another npm install or two, simple POC could take 5 minutes.

>transcribe with elvenlabs

I don't know what elvenlabs is, nor do I care, but I doubt it's as complex as the OP thinks it is considering the rest of their comment was about simple, solved problems.
by cosmicgadget | 2026-03-14 17:00:43+00:00
> But occupying the Gallipoli peninsular doesn’t begin to compare with occupying more than 150 km of Iranian shoreline, from Qeshm island in the west to the Port of Bandar Abas and down the coast to Koo Mobarak, where the strait widens.

Barring an unexpected regime change or capitulation at the negotiating table, seems like the only option is an occupation of the coast. I wonder if air power and modern munitions will change the game compared to the Dardanelles. Or if a small force will be used to twist congress's arm to authorize a large force.
by nkurz | 2026-03-14 17:01:13+00:00
> You would think even the lowest paid employees performing routine labor at the company would be pulling in multiple 6-figure salaries.

Why would you think that? Because of Musk's reputation for magnificence and generosity? Because rich gigantic companies don't care about keeping operating costs low? Or because janitors at SpaceX require special skills that can only be obtained by paying many multiples of the market rates for standard janitors?
by Lucasoato | 2026-03-14 17:01:17+00:00
After one year and half of service, my HP printer updated (without my consent) and blocked the third-party ink cartridge I’ve been using for months without troubles.
Luckily, I bought it on Amazon so I just returned it and bought a Brother printer that has been working fine since then.
The best way to stop a brand from doing bullshit practices is showing your friends how easy it is to avoid them. Just buy a Brother and HP can go fuck themselves forever.
Show HN: Open-source alternative to Factory.ai's Agent Readiness
by eddelgado | 2026-03-14 17:01:51+00:00
We launched Kodus – Agent Readiness today.

It’s an open source CLI that analyzes your codebase across 39 checks and 7 pillars, from linting to security, and shows how ready it is for agents like Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot.

Everything runs locally.

Your code never leaves your machine.

Factory.ai coined the term Agent Readiness, but their solution is proprietary, cloud only, and paid.

So we built a free, self hosted, open source alternative.

Feedback is very welcome.

Here is the repository link: https://github.com/kodustech/agent-readiness
by dluan | 2026-03-14 17:01:52+00:00
We have a massive poisoning of the commons catastrophe coming, driven by further authoritarian government overreach and control. I've seen no one working on this, and in fact most people on HN seem to be working on ways to further exacerbate this problem. I don't just mean half solutions like tor or social protocols that let you in and out of walled gardens.

There's still a tiny window of opportunity for engineers to come up with or design technical safeguards, but eventually this problem will move past the realm of what's easily solvable and out of our hands, and into policy makers hands. A big part of me feels like that window is already slammed shut.
by vlovich123 | 2026-03-14 17:01:56+00:00
Wow, nativism from the left is wild to see. Obama was the son of an immigrant vs the grandchild of one for Trump. There’s a lot of valid criticism of Melania but claiming it’s because she “can’t” speak English is wild (she speaks with an accent but so what).

I’m tired of attacks on personal characteristics that have no bearing (or are even outside their control) rather than on legitimate things like ideas, temperament, decision making, track record. Do better.
by bluebxrry | 2026-03-14 17:01:57+00:00
Look, my fellow smug lisp weenies, I love Emacs too, but FrameMaker is the standard. If I pay $100 for Times New Roman Pro from Monotype, my DSL is automatically more expensive. I select Times New Roman Pro in Adobe's tools, and it prints it.

Emacs, LuaTeX et al, GhostScript, and PDF take the liberty of upgrading my $100 Times New Roman Pro to Libre New Roman (from the LibreOffice typesetting subsystem) without my consent, and I have to link it using configs like a C library and hope the path environment variable is clobbered together in the right order.

Or you can use the Weenie Hut Junior HTML-V8 infused PDFium, where I basically have to manipulate a tamper-resistant DOM to print a post on most social media sites. Then Chrome uses whatever font it feels like for the timestamp and header. It's almost easier to hardcode my Times New Roman Pro font file into their source code and recompile Chromium, and last time I attempted that, my computer BSOD'd since I forgot only the bourgeoisie can actually use open source, not just look at it.

That's why FrameMaker is the standard generalized markup editor.

Things ahead aren't looking too good, especially after Xerox drivers had that glitch that replaced numbers with different-looking ones. Don't get me started on my recent HP all-in-one fax machine nightmare. Maybe the smug LISP weenie that joked about stapling his s-expr onto the IRS worksheet was right.

If anyone finds this comment, tell my family I died trying to find a way to share the best version of the Times New Roman font for them to read the XML in.
by ajkjk | 2026-03-14 17:02:01+00:00
I guess my stance (which is not very well-developed or anything) is that you try to learn to live with the gaps: define everything in terms of only what you can measure and it no longer matters whether a number is rational or irrational, or infinitesimal vs small-but-finite, because you can't tell. Instead of saying "it vanishes" as an absolute statement you say "it appears to vanish from my perspective".
by pavpanchekha | 2026-03-14 17:02:06+00:00
They're cheap but not free, especially at the front end of the CPU where it's just a lot more instructions to churn through. What the branch predictor gets you is it turns branches, which would normally cause a pipeline bubble, to be executed like straightline code if they're predicted right. It's a bit like a tracing jit. But you will still have a bunch of extra instructions to, like, compute the branch predicate.
by reilly3000 | 2026-03-14 17:02:08+00:00
Epson EcoTank has been a great system for my personal needs. They sell devices for full price but will ink that is distributed via bottle that fill a visible tank. If you’re using one color more than others you only have to buy that one. I’m sure the print head will eventually need replacement but it’s been going strong for 5 years so far.
by castillar76 | 2026-03-14 17:02:28+00:00
> The point of communication between engineers is usually to establish a mutual understanding...

I tried to let this pass in the discussion, I really did, but since it came up in various other replies I felt like I just couldn't. We need to get the hell over ourselves as a profession: the fact that someone is an "engineer" says nothing about their communications styles, needs, or preferences as a person.

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically different about two engineers discussing a software codebase and two doctors discussing a surgical plan. Or two artists discussing a mural design. Or two musicians discussing a score. Or two stone masons discussing an arch design. Two professionals are discussing a professional issue as peers, and they are both people, which means they will have preferences about their communication styles and needs and none of that is dictated or predictable based on their choice of profession. I have worked with engineers who valued social interaction buffering comments about their code; I have met musicians who valued just being told what to do better in the next run-through.

If you[0], as a person, value directness, bully for you. Express that need to your peers, ask them to respect it, be prepared to be annoyed when they don't. But don't assume or expect them to assume that that's your communication style — or that it should be your communication style — because you are an engineer.

[0] The reader of this comment, not directed specifically at the person who posted this.
by staticassertion | 2026-03-14 17:02:36+00:00
Right... I mean, no engineer is going to tell you that customers care about unit tests, so I think you're arguing against a straw man here. What engineers will tell you is that bugs cost money, support costs money, etc, and that unit tests are one of the ways we cheaply reduce those costs in order to solve problems, which is what we're in the business of doing.

We are all very aware of the fact that customers pay us... it seems totally strange to be that you think we wouldn't be aware of this fact. I suspect this is where the disconnect comes in, much to the point of the article - you seem to think that engineers just write tests and code, but the article points out how silly that is, we spend most of our time thinking about our customers, features, user experience, and how to match that to the technology choices that will allow us to build, maintain, and support systems that meet customer expectations.

I think people outside of engineering might be very confused about this, strangely, but engineers do a ton of product work, support work, etc, and our job is to match that to the right technology choices.
by reactordev | 2026-03-14 17:02:50+00:00
Like any human would, 75% certain with 99% confidence. That’s what you fail to realize. They aren’t “god mode machine”. They are “human-mode” machines and humans make mistakes in thinking just like you do. Some might say asking a powerful LLM for gaming tips is a waste of compute power. Others might say it gives you the knowledge of a new meta emerging. Either way, you both are going to get trained.
by GorbachevyChase | 2026-03-14 17:03:12+00:00
This is a completely unfounded conspiracy theory, but I think it’s a fun one. I think Elon Musk is running these companies the same way that he is a top ranked Diablo player. He just plays one on TV. The decision makers in the military industrial complex pushed black programs into a group of private company so they could scale and cut red tape while shedding contractors with really serious performance problems. So now a faction of “the insiders“ control space launches, social media, and have a backup AI company. There are less successful programs like Tesla for getting cattle like me to drive an electric car that can be remotely driven into a median or disabled if someone in Bethesda decides that they don’t like you. Also there is a not so successful attempt to revolutionize tunnel logistics for defense. So what I’m saying is that this is military tech, they just pretend these are private companies run by a Tony Stark showman. I can’t support this with evidence, but it makes for a good story.
by never_inline | 2026-03-14 17:03:18+00:00
> This isn’t just academic elegance, it kept phone switches running with five nines of availability.

Hmm....

> Erlang is the strongest form of the isolation argument, and it deserves to be taken seriously, which is why what happens next matters.

OK I think I know who wrote this.

> The problem isn’t that developers write circular calls by accident. It’s that deadlock-freedom doesn’t compose.

Is there a need to regugriate it in this format? "two protocols that are individually deadlock-free can still combine to deadlock in an actor system." This is the actually meaningful part.

> Forget to set a timeout on a gen_server:call?

People have pointed out its factually wrong in the thread. Eh

> This is the discipline tax. It works when the team is experienced, the codebase is well-maintained, and the conventions are followed consistently. It erodes when any of those conditions weaken, and given enough time and enough turnover they do.

I know this is an LLM tell, but can't point out. It makes me uneasy to read this. Maybe the rule of three? Maybe the reguggeiation of a elementary SE concept in between a technical description? Maybe because it's tryhard to sound smart? All three I guess.

I could go on, but sigh, man don't use these clankers to write prose. They're like negative level gzip compression.
by jfengel | 2026-03-14 17:04:02+00:00
Aggravatingly, some of it is. The organic food regulations are impossible for the small farmers who invented the idea. Only mega corps can do it, and their definition is not much better (if at all) than industrial farms.

It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
by shimman | 2026-03-14 17:04:11+00:00
I am writing software myself and your attitude is just weird. We should always strive for better more efficient software, the climate crisis is a real thing and our industry has done an excellent job exacerbating it with more inefficient tools, libraries, and languages.

People prefer JS because all they know is JS, it's that simple. Please tell me why you think devs choose JS, I'm legitimately curious but your attitude of constant dismissal and disparagement makes it seem you just want to beat people down and not engage.
by lich_king | 2026-03-14 17:04:24+00:00
Eh. It's different, but framing it as uniquely challenging seems silly. There are very few other jobs where you don't need to deliver any specific, measurable results for months or years. And your "career-ending" outcome is that you go and get a cozy industry job in the same field because you already have a degree. Now, you might have a difficulty adjusting to that because they will want you to get stuff done.
by rawgabbit | 2026-03-14 17:04:38+00:00
”What it means in practice is that your colleague can write "this approach is wrong, here's why" instead of "hey, hope you're doing well, I had some time to look at your PR and I just wanted to shared a few small thoughts, please take these as just one perspective, and of course you know the codebase better than I do, but I was wondering if maybe we could potentially consider [useful thing here]" and then bury the actual point six paragraphs deep. Both messages contain the same information, however one of them respects time.”

The author argues brevity is more efficient even if it is rude so he argues for brevity. This is why engineers suck at politics and relationships. Brevity and efficiency is a false mantra to live by. It is better to be effective and get what you want without pissing off everyone. The authors’s example is a non starter. When he writes this approach is wrong…, he is starting a flame war even if he argues he isn’t. It would be better to say something like I disagree with this approach, then give your assumptions and reasoning. Even if you don’t get your way, you got it off your chest and came across as professional.
by roncesvalles | 2026-03-14 17:04:44+00:00
I think it's easy to forget that the LLM is not a magic oracle. It doesn't give great answers. What you do with the LLM's output determines whether the engineering you produce is good or bad. There are places where you can plonk in the LLM's output as-is and places you can't, or times when you have to keep nudging for a better output, and times when nothing the LLM produces is worth keeping.

It makes bad engineering easier because it's easy to fall into the trap of "if the LLM said so, it must be right".
by jinko-niwashi | 2026-03-14 17:04:53+00:00
Your "don't fucking touch that file" experience is the exact pattern I kept hitting. After 400+ sessions of full-time pair programming with Claude, I stopped trying to fix it with prompt instructions and started treating it as a permissions problem.

The model drifts because nothing structurally prevents it from drifting. Telling it "don't touch X" is negotiating behavior with a probabilistic system — it works until it doesn't. What actually worked: separating the workflow into phases where certain actions literally aren't available. Design phase? Read and propose only. Implementation phase? Edit, but only files in scope.

Your security example is even more telling — the model folding under minimal pushback isn't a knowledge gap, it's a sycophancy gradient. No amount of system prompting fixes that. You need the workflow to not ask the model for a judgment call it can't be trusted to hold.
by cortesoft | 2026-03-14 17:04:53+00:00
Job loss is a horrible reason to ban something. Think about our history if we always did that. We would all be stuck working on farms today, because we didn’t want to allow tractors or other machinery because it would take away farming jobs.

Instead of banning tech to save jobs, pass laws that make sure tech prices in externalities (tax carbon emissions), and find other ways to assist people who lose jobs (UBI, good social safety nets, etc).

Don’t stifle progress just because it makes us have to work less.
by somenameforme | 2026-03-14 17:05:20+00:00
No I won't. No I certainly won't. This nonsense is fun for shit posting on the internet but it literally does not matter. Countries are driven by self interest. If we wanted to stop dicking around in other country's affairs then we could be trade buddies with pretty much whoever we wanted with absolutely zero consequence to ourselves, and likely substantial benefit.

The thing about nukes, to say nothing of US geography, is that the chances of us being attacked is literally zero, unless it's a doomsday type nuclear bombardment affair. We don't even have to worry about things like a decapitation attempt since we're not surrounded by hostile military bases, or any other country's military bases for that matter.

Whatever the rest of the world wants to do - that's their problem. This isn't necessarily isolationist because I'm perfectly happy trading and engaging in any positive way with other nations, but this sort of 'nation building' and geopolitical crap we try to do just about always fails, and the few times it hasn't (like South Korea) is far more incidental than consequential. We left them with an endless series of awful dictators in charge and they somehow stumbled their way into becoming a half decent place, independent of us.
by tonyedgecombe | 2026-03-14 17:06:33+00:00
>I can't believe this has to be said, but yeah. Code took time, but it was never the hard part.

For you and others here but you only need to look at the number of people who can’t code FizzBuzz to realise there are many who struggle with it.

It’s easy to take your own knowledge for granted. I’ve met a lot of people who know their business inside out but couldn’t translate that knowledge into code.
by rdtsc | 2026-03-14 17:06:35+00:00
> ETS is not a process that responds to messages, you have to wrap it in a process and do the messages part yourself.

I didn't say it's implemented as a process but works as if it where logically. Most terms (except literals and the binary references) are still copied just like when you send message. You could replace it behind the scenes with a process and it would act the same. Performance-wise it won't be the same, and that why they are implemented differently but it doesn't allow sharing a process heap and you don't have to do locks and mutexes access this "shared" data.

> i am pretty sure that's a process_info bif that directly queries the vm internal database and not a secret message that can be trapped or even uses the normal message passing system.

I specifically meant querying the dictionary of another process. Since it's in the context of "erlang is violating the shared nothing" comment. In that case if we look at https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/ref_man_processes.html#rec... we see that process_info_request is a signal. A process is sent a signal, and then it gets its dictionary entries and replies (note the difference between messages and signals there).
by Mistletoe | 2026-03-14 17:06:46+00:00
To quote The Cable Guy, there’s only one answer, someone has to kill the babysitter (tv, social media, Big Tech). It’s hard to kill the babysitter when everyone in Congress is invested balls deep in the babysitter. Eisenhower warned of the coming overreaching powers of the Military Industrial Complex, but no one is attacking the Government Stock Market Tech Complex (GSMTC).
by waffletower | 2026-03-14 17:06:47+00:00
You can't demonize Google, in binary fashion, and remain intellectually honest. Economically the big tech relationship is clearly one-sided, but that ignores what the tech companies are actually providing. If we didn't find a need for their products, they wouldn't be streaming billions in revenue. Even before 2017, while deservedly subject to global anti-trust suits, they provided arguably the best and most popular search tool which empowered and connected its literal billions of users. In 2017 Google researchers published "Attention is all you need" for all eyes to read -- without a software patent. This came after a long trajectory of AI investment. This seminal work, more than any other single advance, birthed modern AI, an undeniably powerful and disruptive technology which is largely supplanting Google's search products. While I am supportive of big tech giving back in the form of higher taxation upon their profits, you can't deny the arguably insane research gifts they have bestowed upon all. But you still certainly can ask the question, "is this technology making the world a better place?" as you have suggested.
by Twey | 2026-03-14 17:07:21+00:00
The Gladwellian direct/indirect dichotomy (or continuum) is a misapprehension of how language works. All communication is indirect in some sense because we don't have mind control powers over our fellow humans. Even saying ‘I want to buy this bread’ is indirect in a sense: you're not causing the baker to sell you the bread, nor even explicitly instructing them to, but just stating your personal internal desires. It is a cultural construct that being told someone's internal desire is supposed to function as a ‘direct’ instruction to satisfy it, and even in that there is a lot of room for ambiguity depending on context etc. For example, if I were speaking not to the baker but to my friend as we peruse the bakery together, ‘I want to buy this bread’ could have a variety of intended impacts on their actions. It could mean ‘let's come to an agreement about whether we should collectively buy this bread’. It could mean ‘pass me my wallet so I can pay for the bread’. It could mean ‘go and find me a shopkeep who can legally sell me the bread’. It could just mean ‘you are my friend and I'm telling you my internal monologue so that you can understand me better’.

If you interpret the language of a different culture (separated by space or time — try reading the ‘flowery’ language of Victorian or Elizabethan literature) too literally, it reads as ‘indirect’. But that doesn't mean that the native speakers from that culture consider it so. You're simply missing the cultural context that makes their phrasing as ‘direct’ to them as ‘I want to buy this bread’ is to you.
by ear7h | 2026-03-14 17:07:29+00:00
> At least it is a lot more realistic than silly 3D animation approach used in many previous movies (e.g. "hacking the Gibson" on Hackers, or the much worse portrayals on Swordfish)

One of the things I love about Hackers is that it portrays the feeling of hacking and programming to someone who might not have done it. Yea I think a lot of people have the green text hackerman image when they think about hacking but it hardly conveys what's happening inside the head of the hacker, it's just something cryptic magic that solves a problem and advances the plot. In Hackers, the Gibson is a space, somepeople live there and oversee it, other's have to transport themselves (there's a montage with fast shots of a subway, then computer circuit boards, then the "buildings" of the gibson that work really well imo). Not every film has to convey all of this but I really appreciate that Hackers does.