skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Converge (YC S23) will review your YC application before you submit
Hi HN,

We're the co-founders of Converge. YC was a turning point for us, and we believe that a large contributor to us getting in was the feedback we received from previous YC founders (e.g. founders of PostHog reviewed our application back in the day).

Now that the next YC application deadline is in 8 days, we'd like to pay it forward by offering feedback on your application.

If you’d like a fresh set of eyes, fill out this form: https://forms.gle/H12KqmaaN4zpoYBd9

We’ll do our best to respond with thoughts or suggestions.
„The sun is not powered by fusion“ actually contains a little information as to the inner workings of the star, so I’m a bit confused by the argument.
Everyone arguing for LLMs as a corrupting crutch needs to explain why this time is different: why the grammar-checkers-are-crutches, don't-use-wikipedia, spell-check-is-a-crutch, etc. etc. people were all wrong, but this time the tool really is somehow unacceptable.
The irony here is obvious, but what's interesting is that Anthropic is basically asking to not give then a realistic preview of how you will work.

This feels similar to asking devs to only use vim during a coding challenge and please refrain from using VS Code or another full featured IDE.

If you know, and even encourage, your employees to use LLMs at work you should want to see how well candidates present themselves in that same situation.
How do you know that number?
How do scientists get lead into the LHC
Bluesky - the Social Network where everybody posts screenshots of the awful things people post on other social networks!
This misses the point much like saying people should use Linux because it's open source. Open source is great, but at the end of the day, people will use software that they're both capable of using and that solves their problems. If you don't tick both of those boxes, the rest of it doesn't matter. Social media is the same, owning your data is nice, but if the barrier to both entry and maintenance is too high for a regular user, it's not going to happen.
(3) is biasing the process strongly in favour of people who spin a good story. If you're looking for a certain team culture then OK but this is going to neatly screen out anyone who just wants to do their job well and doesn't particularly know how to sell the extra-curriculars they have.
OpenAI unveils a new ChatGPT agent for 'deep research'
Fireworks and Drones | Fatbobman's Swift Weekly #069

- Swift Build
- Swift Concurrency Glossary
- Multiplatform Development
- Send Email in iOS
- PhotosKit Storage Model
- macOS System Services
I second this. My previous company started in-person interview for this very reason.
I work at a hyperscaler, for autos, in Detroit.

It’s the worst it’s been since 2020 imo. Stella is cost cutting and just lost their ceo, ford is attached to google, GM literally just left the rencen.

The t1s are being canabalized.

This article is a joke.
Well, it's the an equal sign missing from one. For the later it can stay the same while it cannot stay the same for the former.
shallow knowledge on my side, but it seems that the AT proto requires some fancy relay node that, as of now, are only hosted by big corps, so no one has a a fully independent bsky instance
> If you're looking to score, sure, it's somewhat unethical but it works.

Observation/Implication/Opinion:

Think reciprocal forces and trash TV ethics in both, closed and open systems. The consequences are continuously diminished AND unvarying returns. Professionally as well as personally, in all parties involved. Stimulating, inspiring, motivating factors as well as the ability to perceive and "sense" all degrade. But compensation and cheating continue to work, even though, the quality of the game, the players and their output decreases.

Nothing and nobody is resilient "enough" to the mechanism force - 'counter'-force so you better pick the right strategy. Waiting/Processing for a couple of days, lessons and honest attempts yields exponentially better results than cheating.

Companies should beware of this if they expect results that are qualitatively AND "honestly" safe & sound. This has been ignored in the past decades, which is why we are "here". Too much work, too many jobs, and way too many enabling outs have been lost almost irreversibly, on the individual level as well as in nano-, micro-, and macro-economics.

Applicants using AI is fine but applicants not being able to make that output usefully THEIRS is a problem.
I never thought I'd see a misunderstanding of what "implies" means in science versus in logic be the fundamental mistake made in a paper on logic for science.

Here's the truth table for implies (if) in logic.

| A | B | If A then B |
|---+---+-------------|
| T | T | T |
| T | F | F |
| F | T | T |
| F | F | T |

Show this to anyone in the sciences who hasn't done logic and you'll instantly get the objections "But hang on, the two rows at the bottom don't fit!".

This is where you need to add temporal logic so that the scientific understanding of A casually implies B can be represented in logic.

In short the paper does nothing of the sort of what it says it does because it fundamentally uses the wrong tool for the job.
Can you prove to us that it is possible to interact with someone on Bluesky without being registered on Bluesky?

Threads use e ActivityPub but we know it's bullshit and that they will shut down the network as soon as possible. Bluesky is the same shit. AT protocol is just a honey pot.
It contributes little to discuss a hypothetical future. Maybe we'll have fusion energy, delivery drones, everyone using VR, etc. Maybe we will go into a deep recession due to trade wars, or maybe not.

The meaningful discussion is about how they perform NOW and the edge cases that have persisted since GPT-2 which no one has yet found a good solution for.
I wondered why the page was full of blank areas, it's because of this:

https://caniuse.com/hevc

... the videos are hevc-encoded and don't work for me in eg firefox. (I can see them if I switch to chrome)

per ffmpeg:

Stream #0:0[0x1](und): Video: hevc (Main) (hvc1 / 0x31637668), yuv420p(tv, bt709, progressive), 1080x656, 1219 kb/s, 60 fps, 60 tbr, 15360 tbn (default)
They don't because they do. However maybe the Anthropic AI isn't performing well on AI generated applications.

I think they will get better results by having applicants talk to an AI during the application process.
I've just added the numbers of my kids school onto the list and it's been fine for me. I've never had them contact me from anything other than the schools number, but I'm in the UK and I would be very surprised if a teacher tried to call me from their mobile phone or something.
Doesn't mean anything. Facebook used to support XMPP.
I take epistemological issue with that, basically, because I don't know how you measure those things. I believe fundamentally that the only way to measure things like that is to look at the outputs, and whether it's the system improving or the person operating that system improving I can't tell.

What is the difference between a "less good programmer" and a "more good programmer" if you can't tell via their work output? Are we doing telepathy or soul gazing here? If they produce good work they could be a team of raccoons in a trench coat as far as I'm aware, unless they start stealing snacks from the corner store.
Because there is no intent, need or reason to vary it.

Nearly everything in RAM is technically a global variable to someone who is keen enough. Programming depends on a sort-of honour system not to treat things like variables if it is hinted that they shouldn't and it doesn't make sense to. Otherwise we can all start making calls to scanmem & friends.
Whenever someone asks you to not do something that is victimless, you always should think about the power they are taking away from you, often unfairly. It is often the reason why they have power over you at all. By then doing that very thing, you regain your power, and so you absolutely should do it. I am not asking you to become a criminal, but to never be subservient to a corporation.
I can't explain it fully but mastodon seems more confusing than bluesky, maybe too much emphasis on "you can have any server" which then creates more questions than it's necessary. It has also more features and terms.. while bluesky seems more efficient at getting you living in good old twitter like world which is people (at least I) missed ?
> An often overlooked positive effect of macros is that the entire community can experiment with new language features.

Sure, that sounds positive - but with enough macros, you can turn "your" version of the language into something completely unrecognizable to people that are only familiar with the "basic" version (or, otherwise said: congratulations, you've got yourself a DSL!), and I would say that's a rather negative effect...
Exactly the same for me. I now just use and old android phone with a broken screen and run scrcpy
Exactly what 'authority' would be sufficient here?
Negative. They are not the law.
Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42913251
Something else is at work. We’re teaching the public on how to move platforms. The general public has a serious problem with tech inertia.

We in tech have not even made a 1-click port everything to somewhere else please button (need to build the somewhere else too).

There’s a lot of work to be done.
What if their lack of knowledge runs so deep that you question if their even able to prompt the AI without step by step instructions?

There's nothing wrong with a candidate going "Normally I'd prompt ChatGPT and get a skeleton project going" or saying "Look, I don't run around with the entire standard library in my head. I look that stuff up and sometimes that's with an LLM". The problem is when they can't go through the steps of solving a program, without the AI. I don't care about the details, or if you ask Copilot to do the API query code, because you don't want to write the error handling, that actually fairly reasonable, but if you can't prompt it to add the logic for a HTTP 403 then what's the point? In that case I'd rather hire someone who takes longer, but who knows that the 403 should probably redirect an unauthenticated user to the login page.
Not AI, but we were talking about a debugger specifically.
SaaS Pricing Experimentation Handbook
Twitter/X has shown to be no more than a self-promotion and PR platform as soon as it became popular. Just disposable snippets (pretty much the definition of a 'twit') to drive views. The same will apply to Bluesky. It does not matter whether it is centralized or not, VC money or not, as long as it serves that purpose. In fact a centralized system probably serves this purpose better as it is easier for the users and for content reach.
Waydroid runs Android services and applications natively on your machine in a container with apps launching in windows side-by-side with your other applications, whereas the Android emulator runs a VM with regular smartphone-esque hardware.

Quite a big difference.
Not sure if we're using the same method, but when I go to sign up it asks me for a username, then selects <username>@bsky.social as my full username.
AT Proto is heavily developed by BS and BS is itself the major consumer of AT Proto.
This is one of the many good reasons to avoid the google app store but most apps in general.

Let it be known, having an app to do something which used to be doable by a website is to me a red flag. Although I refuse to install anything other than what I genuinely trust.
"Bluesky asks about which server to use on registration"

No he doesn't ask, you're wrong.

And there is no single one alternative server where we can register and interact with people on bsky.app
const is different in C++ from const in C. const variables in C++ are proper compile-time constants. In C they are not (the nearest equivalents are #define and enum values).

So in C++ "const x = EXPR" would make sense to request compile-time evaluation, but in C it wouldn't.
LLMs have come a long way. If you give gpt-o3-mini the same interview question five times, chances are good that it will get it right all five times. Yes, it's not a calculator, but it's approaching one.
It just helped me realize what a pile of s** twitter became, I did not know how bad it was.
For the rationale, it feels more like Musk and others are shouting accusations like they have been doing for months.
But whatever, maybe less global soft power for the US is a good thing for us in the rest of the world, but likely it's just bad for everyone
We already have a wildly successful open protocol for communication, email. People also want the advantages of centralization.
You cannot run a bluesky instance on your own. The AT protocol isn't really a protocol in the same way that matrix or mastodon is. It's just an API, you know like all platforms used to have?
Surprised a rich country like Japan cares so much. Rice is super cheap

Is this not in rounding error territory for most household?
No, not a quote, a very poor recollection of casually reading about this. He was keen on resisting, tried to organize a group (of writers?) and made some proposals for violent acts (assassinations?) but they couldn't get it together to do anything.
"Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their wood-nailing test."
I see this line of "I need to assess your thinking, not the AI's" thinking so often from people who claim they are interviewing, but they never recognize the elephant in the room for some reason.

If people can AI their way into the position you are advertising, then at least one of the following two things have to be true:

1) the job you are advertising can be _literally_ solved by AI

2) you are not tailoring your interview process properly to the actual job that the candidate will need to do, hence the handwave-y "oh well harder problems will come up later that the AI will not be able to do". Focus the interview on the actual job that the AI can't do, and your worries will disappear.

My impression is that the people who are crying about AI use in interviews are the same people who refuse to make an effort themselves. This is just the variation of the meme where you are asked to flip a red black tree on a whiteboard, but then you get the job, and your task is to center a button with CSS. Make an effort and focus your interview on the actual job, and if you are still worried people will AI their way into it, then what position are you even advertising? Either use the AI to solve the problem then, or admit that the AI can't solve this and stop worrying about people using it.
Our channel on YouTube has been deleted due to “spam and deceptive policies”
DRY is one of the most misapplied principles in software development. Overuse often leads to bloated, hard-to-maintain code rather than clean abstractions. Instead of blindly avoiding duplication, we should focus on separating concerns properly.
They absolutely are not. Look at this range for-loop:

for (const auto item: vec) { ... }

`item` is not a compile-time constant. It's different every run of the loop.
Tangential, I want to build a camera based fish feeder, is there any hardware that can shake fish food pellets and can I use my python knowledge directly?
Not sure about the proxy setup, but redroid is basically android in a docker container.
I went through a round of interviews the second half of last year. Interviewing felt the same as it had over the last 5 or 10 years honestly.

I had a few coding challenges, all were preinterview and submitted online or shared in a private repo. One company had an online quiz that was actually really interesting to take, the questions were all multiple choice but done really well to tease out someone's experience in a few key areas.

For what its worth I don't use LLMs and the interview loop went about as I'd expect in a tough job market.
1. We still teach assembly to students. Having a mental model of what the computer is doing is incredibly helpful. Every good programmer has such a model in my experience. Some of them learned it by studying it explicitly, some picked it up more implicitly. But the former tends to be a whole lot faster without the stop on the way where you are floundering as a mid level with a horribly incorrect model for years (which I’ve seen many many times).

2. Compilers are deterministic. You can recompile the source code and get the same assembly a million times.

You can also take a bit of assembly then look at the source code of the compiler and tell exactly where that assembly came from. And you can change the compiler to change that output.

3. Source code is written in a formal unambiguous language.

I’m sure LLMs will be great at spitting out green field apps, but unless they evolve to honest to goodness AGI, this won’t get far beyond existing low code solutions.

No one has solved or even proposed a solution for any of these issues beyond “the AI will advance sufficiently that humans won’t need to look at the code ever. They’ll never need to interact with it in any way other than through the AI”.

But to get to that point will require AGI and the AI won’t need input from humans at all, it won’t need a manager telling it what to build.
Track books I have been reading
This seems to be the way of things. Oral traditions were devastated by writing, but the benefit is another civilization can hold on to all your knowledge while you experience a long and chaotic dark age so you don't start from 0 when the Enlightenment happens.
With more places, comes more mental load and time waste. I for one use HN, Mastodon, and a single Discord server with some friends. I don't care about the rest.
You just wrote my thoughts in polite manner. I am adding up, that German universities have no capability to do applied research. All the time everything “applied” was not worthy for them. “Applied” was the level of Hochschule (higher school) type institutions. Even being good these institutions didn’t had good reputation. So the best and brightest went to universities far away from practical research applications. The system isn’t built for great AI race. Add poor salaries and yearly contracts for research positions and all the smart pupils are gone. Gone to work for Google or Facebook or even Huawei!

Imho death spiral could be turned by providing enough affordable housing. That would be really long term goal, but the democracies do not have long term goals - the time after election ist time before election.
> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns.

That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right.

And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument.

One of the interesting pieces of data is looking at 2nd amendment support versus distance to the nearest police station / police officer / likely law enforcement response times. It explains a lot about where support / opposition comes from.
An American techie on China (not what the interviewer expected– Video)
Not from a non-bayesian perspective. It's what Deutsch would call a "bad explanation" i.e. it's easy to vary and thus doesn't tell us about how the sun is powered.
The more access to your system that a web page has, the better it can fingerprint you. All of those ApIs aren’t going to be opt in
Now I'm intrigued. Why not post it publicly?
I'm honestly not much of a social network user, but I signed up with universeodon and it seems to work fine as a mastodon server. Most of the people I follow are on different servers anyway, so I didn't worry so much about finding a server that was a "good fit" for me.
And does it have interop with noscript/basic (x)html browser?
Exactly - being transparent about AI usage in interviews makes much more sense. Using AI effectively is becoming a crucial skill, like knowing how to use any other development tool. Using it well can supercharge productivity, but using it poorly can be counterproductive or even dangerous.

It's interesting that most software departments now expect their staff to use AI tools day-to-day, yet many still ban it during interviews. Why not flip this around? Let candidates demonstrate how they actually work with AI. It would be far more valuable to assess someone's judgment and skill in using these tools rather than pretending they don't exist.

If a candidate wants to show how they leverage AI in their workflow, that should be seen as a positive - it demonstrates transparency and real-world problem-solving approaches. After all, you're hiring someone for how they'll actually work, not how they perform in an artificial AI-free environment that doesn't reflect reality.

The key isn't whether someone uses AI, but how effectively they use it as part of their broader skillset. That's what companies should really be evaluating.
This really echoes the old “hackers, builders, maintainers” analogy and its wisdom about knowing which you are and being able to understand the other two aren’t the same as you are. Likely dips into the spectrums between as well.
I don't see the cognitive dissonance here. If a model was applying for a position with a cosmetics company, they might want to see what the blank canvas looks like.

Being able to gauge a candidate's natural communication skills is highly useful. If you're an ineffective communicator, there's a good chance your comprehension skills are also deficient.
Much appreciated, thank you!

Still got a long way to go for me to be happy, but we make great progress every year

https://forums.ankiweb.net/t/ankidroid-2024-roundup-2-20-1-c...