skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Most people who glorify 70+ hour weeks don’t work those hours and never have. Think about what that means in terms of neglecting other things.
This is all just crass literary snobbery... "look, just look how badly Dan Brown writes, I could do better, here let me weave in some reference to Keats".

The fact is that Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank while this mere pamphleter rails against perceived slights against literary asceticism.
Right. Almost any time somebody fails an interview it is not because of "very hard questions" but because they did not prepare properly in a sensible manner. People don't want whiteboarding, no programming questions, no mathematical questions, no fermi problems etc. which is plain silly and not realistic. One just needs to know the basics and simple applications of the above which is more than enough to get through most interviews. The key is not to feel overawed/overwhelmed with unknown notations/jargons which is what the actual problem is when people run away from big-O, DS/Algo, Recursion, application of Set Theory/Logic to Programming etc.
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42819262
Junior devs can also use LLMs thereby making them better than LLMs.
On the other hand, Barrack Obama normalized death from the skies over the middle east and helped destabilize the entire region.

He was also an awful president, in other ways.
Eminem had a TBI as a child and I wonder if it turned him into a rapper savant.
The nation doesn’t just need a shipbuilding revolution—it needs a broader industrial revitalization. Strengthening semiconductor manufacturing, modernizing military and civilian aviation, reinvigorating automotive innovation, and more are all critical. Tackling this alone would be overwhelming, but collaboration with trusted neighbors and reliable allies could make these ambitions achievable. Luckily we have a real bridge builder in cha...
Use the right tool for the job and don't feel bad about it. A pointing device is an excellent way to point at things.

Btw I've been using stumpwm for years, it's ratpoison but implemented in Common Lisp. Give it a look!
Julia and JuliaHub: Advancing Innovation and Growth
This managerless fantasy is always talked about and never works because groups develop leaders naturally. You can tell this article is nonsense by considering that it glorifies Spotify, a service that has stagnated and deteriorated over time despite having a massive product team, and paints it as innovative.
they finally bowed mid last year https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/travel/southwest-google-f...
shell scripting taken to a new level
Things that aren't explicitly made illegal are legal. Who would invest the resources necessary to get a law banning this passed?
> The truth is (as I’m sure you all know) these are fees that we pay to the federal government separately when we import goods from these countries. Other countries don’t pay a dime.

The mistake you're making is only considering first order effects (gov collecting tariff taxes), and ignoring second and greater order effects (how people respond to those taxes).

The truth about tariffs is actually more complicated: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/opinion/trump-tariffs-tra...:

> A good place to start disentangling things is the argument ad nauseam over who pays for tariffs — the consumer or the foreign producer? Contrary to what both sides sometimes assert, the question has no simple answer. “Despite over a century of theoretical debate on the incidence of tariffs, sound empirical evidence on who bears the burden of trade tariffs is sparse,” according to a 2015 article in the University of Chicago’s Chicago Policy Review.

> ...It’s true that up front, a U.S. tariff is levied on Americans, not foreign producers. But what really matters is who bears the ultimate cost. If the foreign producer continues to charge the same amount at the border, then the final price goes up by the amount of the tariff, and the American bears the full cost. But if the foreign producer cuts its price at the border by the amount of the tariff so that the final price paid by the American is unchanged, then the foreign producer bears the full cost of the tariff.

> Typically, the cost will be split. Americans won’t have to bear much of the cost of the tariff if the foreign producer is willing to accept a smaller profit to hang on to its share of the U.S. market. That calculation will vary product by product.
I use https://emmet.io snippets to save a lot of typing all the time:

- You can just type a CSS selector (actually a superset of CSS), then expand it into the analogous HTML.

- In VS code if you select some HTML then hit ALT-W, you can enter an Emmet snippet that surrounds that HTML.

Examples: https://docs.emmet.io/cheat-sheet/
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42913251
You are. Only noobs do this, experts using a llm are way more efficient. (Unless you work like with the same language and libraries for years)
They also hava big bias towards Russian vehicles.

They take wildly inaccurate propaganda numbers and implement them, but nerf the numbers on US vehicles where they exist plenty of actual data from the manufacturer itself in many cases.

See for example 2S38 vs HSTVL & RDF/LT
Nah, already had multiple cases of that; one with a lawyer at a big corp and some others; the story is not straight up 'ai said so' but more like: 'we use different online and offline tools to aid us in our work, sometimes the results are less than satisfactory, and we try to correct those cases'. It is the same response, just showing vulnerability; we are only human, even with our tools.
No, the reason for that has nothing to do with de minimis, and reforming de minimis would not change this particular situation at all.
I strongly disagree. This is nothing. You can sort out if someone is using something like this to cheat. You have a conversation. You can ask conceptual questions about algorithms and time complexity and figure out their level and see how their sophistication matches their solution on the LeetCode problem or whatever. Now, if you have really bad intuition or understanding of human behavior then yeah it would probably be hard but in that case being a good interviewer is probably hopeless anyway.
There are ROK (South Korea) laws banning the display of DPRK (North Korea) imagery (and more), including the DPRK flag. Microsoft considers the SK market important enough that it has a separate version of Windows (the KN subvariant), so it's not really far-fetched that this is a consideration too.
Gnome Introduces New Monospace Adwaita Fonts
Those flag glyphs still have to be harmonized with other emoji glyphs anyway, so including all of them is the safest approach.
I think they are pretty clear if you read the documentation. Accessing to the exact value of these always need some privacy-related privilege on ios and android.

Without those privilege, all you can get is an approximate.
i think the apple ads are the poster child here. hopefully we can see more inventive ones than just serving lazy people.
Did they ever make last.fm for books? Or other things? One of my ideas back in the day was "last.fm for meeting people", i.e. you could connect based on overlapping interests or aesthetic preferences in any dimension of life. That seems to have still not been invented yet?

I'm unconvinced by the profit motive argument: there's plenty of money to be made in the "long tail" of selling weird things (or experiences) to weird people!
I find snippets really useful compared to AI because you have placeholders. You simply have to press Tab to switch from one placeholder to another and fill your snippet with your own values.

Additionally, AI doesn't know how to produce the same output on each execution.
A filter could probably do it already. There are already filters to make you appear to be looking at the camera no matter where your eyes are pointing.
I actually never really understood how to use snippets (and honestly never really tried). Before AI I just used whatever code generator functions there were in Intellij and with AI it's trivial to get scaffolding and boiler plate that isn't covered by those code generators. I still use the code gen stuff for things like getters and setters or constructors though.
Sam will promise in 2035 that AGI is very close and probably will happen at the end of the year, same as every year (Elon als still promises FSD is close and probably comes out EOY, just that FSD might actually be realistic by then).

People use AI a little here and there but nothing much will have changed due to it. Mostly more work for people needing to correct AI mistakes.
In my own experience with openAI's gpt-4o, when feeding with long input, the model simply 'strips' the starting content and answers, while it should output error for more 'accurate' feedback. I switched to my own deployed model for that purpose.

That's a product choice from openAI, not a problem with LLM's long context window input capability.
This is the argument that I was responding to, and repeating it isn’t a curious approach.
There is some progress in open source implementations. Anki originally used a SuperMemo-2 implementation, it now uses the improved FSRS algorithm. There is also an incremental reading addon.

It's a fairly opinionated space, which is surprising since there is good data. But regardless, SuperMemo, FSRS, both work, you will make progress with either. People can just pick either and get started.

https://github.com/open-spaced-repetition/free-spaced-repeti...

https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/935264945
Ask HN: Using LLM to power as expert system for code base/documentation
Here’s an idea that anyone can grab for his/her startup.

Companies that have sufficient history or sufficient number of engineers will have a lot of internal source code, documentation, bug tickets, CRMs or other knowledge bases that are daunting for new engineers to pick up. Even old engineers have a hard time understanding the domain space that is not his expertise. The knowledge is scattered everywhere.

So I’m looking for an “expert system” that I can install on my premise ( or have access to my GitHub/Bitbucket hosted instance), that would allow me and my staffs to query our internal knowledge system ALA Q&A style. The main idea is for new engineers to get to up speed with our code base. Essentially it is just a generic baseline model (open source LLM such as DeepSeek or LLAMA) with an internal knowledge base on top of it. The baseline model is just to give the “background” knowledge to the expert system. My internal knowledge base is the cream that will pump out useful information for me.

The system doesn’t need to be 100% accurate; my engineers just need a sounding board, or to know where to even start to read, in order to understand the code. I know it’s good also for new engineers to “struggle” with the codebase from time to time in order to generate an intuition for the whole thing. But still, for some tasks, that wouldn’t be necessary; all the engineers need is to quickly get into the right part of the source code, make changes and then get out.

How should I start if I want to write such a system? Or is there already such an out-of-the-box solution out there? If not, it would be an interesting idea for people to work on.
Humans don't grow, convert nutrients to energy, or reproduce independently.

Humans need every day about 30 organic substances that they cannot synthesize, so these substances must be obtained from bacteria, plants and other animals.

Due to having internal reserves, a human will not die immediately when isolated from other living beings, but only after a month or even slightly more. A month of independent life is not enough to grow and reproduce.

However a virus that is encapsulated in its transmission form will also not die definitively immediately, but it can survive for many years independently of any other living beings, i.e. much more than a human can live independently.

There is a huge complexity chasm between any bacterial cell and a virus, but there is also a huge complexity chasm between a virus and any mineral or any chemical substance whose synthesis is known to be possible in abiotic conditions.

There is no doubt that cellular living beings and viruses are 2 very different kinds of things, but both are also very different from any non-alive things.

There are many characteristics common for cellular living beings and viruses, so normally one would need a single word for both of them, to avoid enumerating both of them whenever a sentence is true for both.

The most convenient is to call both of them as living. Those who do not include viruses between living beings utter extremely frequently sentences that are either incorrect or incomplete, because they are true for both cellular living beings and for viruses, but the authors mention only "living beings" with the meaning "cellular living beings", even if those sentences are equally true for viruses.

If you call viruses as non-living, then you must also say that humans and most animals have among their ancestors non-living entities, because our genome incorporates genes that have been obtained from viral ancestors.

The concept of viruses as "non-alive" has been an overcompensation for the previous belief that viruses might be living beings like any others. When it has been discovered than viruses are very different from cellular living beings there has been a fashion to call them non-alive, to demonstrate that one is up-to-date with scientific knowledge and one knows that viruses are very different from cellular beings in many features, even if they are alike in others.

Unfortunately this phenomenon has been very frequent in the history of scientific terminology. There are plenty of examples when after some people had discovered that some things are more different from other related things than previously believed, they gave a new name to their discovery, claiming complete distinctness from what was previously known, even if the correct point of view was midway, i.e. even if the new things were distinct enough to be classified as something different, they also shared enough characteristics with what was previously known to be better considered as just a new subclass of those things.
Mass production at scale requires extensive planning, validation, and ramp-up time.
don't be hyperbolic. deep research would need to help cause an opioid crisis for to get to that level.
When it comes to "patterns" and "anti-patterns", double standards are common.
Awesome clarification! Thank you.

We're not the researchers, we are developing the technology to support research. They are somewhat hamstrung with the currently available technology. There are other benefits to slow-wave enhancement, non-clinical and beyond dementia. It has been suspected this could play a role in prevention of AD, we were very suspicious (and still are a bit) that we could have a direct impact in treating AD.

Having said that, the paper that looked at people with AD saw improvement in sleep, so even if we can help them subjectively feel less exhausted, that could be a quality of life benefit, even if non-clinical.

I completely agree, that proving effectiveness in treatment is a long road, but we're going through a non-clinical use first. If the research works out, we can look into clinical use at a later date.
I heard people flying analog also use quite a bit more transmitter power than allowed for non-regulated devices to keep things manageable. Do you have any reference what's possible with digital when staying in the allowed regime?
There’s no code of conduct or rule book that anyone should follow so ethics is determined at the individual level. That quickly turns to, either I build it for them or the next guy will. Resistance is futile type thing.

Most other types of engineering have published rules and standards and industry credentialing including ethics tied into it and loss of credentials for an ethics violation would be career ending in many cases.
Not one mention of resistance yet. If you have a high ohm set of headphones you'll certainly hear a difference with a good audio interface.
You still have that right; you simply entered into a voluntary agreement with your employer not to exercise it in exchange for money. Happens all the time.
Of course I use snippets over AI.

With AI, you never know what you'll get. OTOH snippets were created by hand by me. I know what to expect of them and what not to expect. They are always the same.
I think we're having a disconnect here. You can keep your custom settings and take them with you wherever you go. This actually also applies to your operating system (especially Linux) but I personally do not mess with them much unless it's a tiling window manager - which is another class of software that benefits greatly from setting up custom shortcuts.
Here is a basic implementation of this in Ruby:
https://gist.github.com/schappim/ad8b4953486617c7f813751c8ee...
If you are experiencing digital noise in the output, like buzzing or clicking that correlates either activity on your computer, try installing a ground loop isolator in between your computer and speakers.

This is essentially a mini transformer that physically isolates speaker/amp from the computer to isolate any power related noise.

They are dead cheap on Amazon these days.

Other than that, a USB DAC might help. You don't need an expensive one, which are mainly expensive due to inputs & microphone preamps. The main benefit will be a reduced noise floor/less background hiss, although that can also come from the amp driving your speakers.
You didn't mention what you're plugging your computer audio into. For example if you're using headphones, then the headphone impedance and the card's ability to drive it are going to vary wildly depending on the specific amplifier circuitry involved. If you're connecting a line level signal to an external amplifier this is not so relevant, although there will be some line-drive circuitry on the board or in the chip, and this will vary, and can make a (marginal) difference if you have long cables.
> There are two other proposals to fix these problems.

Most new features of C++ are introduced to fix problems created by previously new features added to C++.
> "You can even use ChatGPT as long as you're not just directly asking for the solution to the whole problem and just copy/pasting, obviously."

No, it's not "obvious" whatsoever. Actually it's obviously confusing: why you are allowing them to use ChatGPT but forbidding them from asking the questions directly? Do you want an employee who is productive at solving problems, or someone who guess your intentions better?

If AI is an issue for you then just ban it. Don't try to make the interview a game of who outsmart who.
I find essays written in this style to be overwrought in a way that makes them impossible to challenge (setting aside AI summarization). Is this not, in and of itself, a form of fake thinking?

For example, some section of this essay introduces the following:

> Did evolution want to build this kind of truth engine? Well, maybe it’s complicated.

It later begins to conclude with:

> But regardless of the actual evolutionary and psychological story, here, I think my point about the abstract form of a truth engine still stands.

Why bother introducing the evopsych hypothesis if we're not actually going to stand behind it or use it in a meaningful way?

I don't even mean this particularly as a takedown, the dimensions listed are kind of interesting at least. But I find a particular sort of irony in having written so many words and having engaged in so much thought just to return to not thinking about something at all.
What happened to Microsoft's implementation? Wasn't it supposed to come to Windows? Or did that end up by the wayside?
You can't tell us that LLM's aren't ready for prime time in 2025 after you tried Copilot twice last year.

New better models are coming out almost daily now and it's almost common knowledge that Copilot was and is one of the worst. Especially right now, it doesn't even come close to what better models have to offer.

Also the way to use them is to ask for small chunks of code or questions about code after you gave them tons of context (like in Claude projects for example).

"Not ready for prime time" is also just factually incorrect. It is already being used A LOT. To the point that there are rumors that Cursor is buying so much compute from Anthropic that they are making their product unstable, because nvidia can't supply them hardware fast enough.
It's a bit like saying "my kids are going to hit themselves anyway, so it doesn't matter if I give them foam rods or metal rods".
Don't you think that a decent salary and a good work-life balance are also important and play an important role? It is not just about hours.
I tried to get it to build me a slightly challenging app to break out data from a fairly obscure file format for some PLC code, after having tried with Claude.

o3-mini produced volumes of code more quickly and more of it, but Claude still had greater insight in to the problem and decoded the format to a noticeably greater degree.

Whereas 03-mini quickly got to a certain point, it wasn't long before it was obvious it wasn't really going any further - like it's big cousin, but in it's own way, it was lazy and forgetful, seeming at times more interested in telling me what I might try than actually trying itself.

Interestingly, even when I gave it a copy of Claude's code it still wasn't able to get to the same depth of understanding.
> Speakers (5.1)

that seems most likely to be the root cause of the change you're noticing.

if the source audio is 2-channel, do you have it only play on the L & R speakers, or is it getting output to all 6 speakers? that sort of upmixing needs careful tuning, if it's not done well it may sound "muddy" due to the slightly different delays in sound from each speaker reaching your ears.

if you want to isolate it as a controlled variable, hook up only your L & R speakers, play a test track, and see if the perceived quality degradation is still there.
I don't think it is just money. Twitter had slight right wing bias and that was not enough. Musk wanted it to have hard right bias so he destroyed it.

It is simple, money peoppe use money to destroy spaces that don't have their preferred bias.
This will never succeed because the economies of scale are nonexistent without dominance in the commercial shipbuilding market. War planners should have pushed to repeal the Jones Act decades ago, but now Chinese shipbuilding capacity is over 230 times greater than ours because of their success in civilian shipbuilding. The proposed measures in this aricle are too little too late.

The only logical course of action at this stage would be to seek an alternative that leverages the US's existing strengths. Naval vessels are largely outdated technology and meanwhile the US is the world leader in aerospace manufacturing. If we were to revive the 747 Cruise Missile Carrier concept, or else an equivalent program, it could deliver the same range and operational payload as a guided missile destroyer, but at dramatically lower cost and higher operational tempo. With the ability to rapidly ferry munitions thousands of miles to a conflict zone, one 747 CMC aircraft could replace multiple guided missile destroyers despite costing one fifth the price. This is possible because the 747 CMC is based on a reliable and proven aircraft with existing economies of scale.

Thank you for reading my shameless sales pitch.
I don't want to insult you, but I do want to insult the NYT quotes you posted. Frankly, they are about the dumbest effing comments I've read in a while.

I will just pose a simple question- how many industries that trade in real goods have margins in excess of 25%?

How many industries do you know of that would keep going in the face of a 50% haircut to their profit?

Those quotes say nothing and are pure conjecture.

I will tell you exactly who will pay the increase (and then some, because there's always juice on top of juice): we will; you and I, and every person and family we know. That's who.