MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tialaramex | 2025-05-16 01:21:52+00:00
> The problem is that because they're not in the standard library, you're going to have a hard time using those data structures with any other community libraries.

No, all the Rust standard library collections do in fact have the same feature, you can in fact Vec::new_in(SomeAllocator) - my guess is that you'll say "Ah, but that's not yet in stable Rust" and that'd make sense in other contexts but it's a weird objection when the entire Zig language still isn't 1.0.

If you wanted to write a function which takes a container and adds things to it, which I wouldn't recommend, in Rust you'd write that as a polymorphic function, so it'll just get monomorphized for the SomeAllocator variant.

The use of FixedBufferAllocator here is absurd, indeed it's hard to think of non-absurd uses for this allocator, it's a toy because it has no reclamation.

ArrayList has a slightly weird variation on the 1.5x growth pattern, for a large T the ArrayList<T> will grow something like 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 17, 26, etc. But with your 1024 byte FixedBufferAllocator, the older sizes are just discarded so somewhere around 62 or so items it'll blow up, all the rest of the space was just thrown away and so the growth fails

Overall this not only doesn't do what you said you were doing originally (it's not actually a stack† allocated growable array, those simply don't exist), it also doesn't do the thing you ostensibly claim it's useful for either, so much of Zig feels like this.

† Edited: For a few minute this said "heap" due to a thinko
by marv1nnnnn | 2025-05-16 01:24:20+00:00
Thanks for your comments! Really helpful. I have seen some llms.txt like this: https://docs.agno.com/llms.txt which I don't think will help LLM in real tasks. Some background of this project is I think LLM performs better in abstraction than human do. Those AIME test scores are not joking.So maybe smart LLM don't have to communicate with another LLM in plain text, they have more efficient way to communicate. About the excessive token of LLM reasoning, I find it varies. Gemini 2.5 pro is really an overthinker, but claude 3.7 won't. Finaly, I think most vibe-coding task don't require deep understanding of how a package works. It's more like a information retrieval task, so a lot could be compressed.
by roxolotl | 2025-05-16 01:26:22+00:00
I’ve been writing a lot of functional lisp lately for the first time and one thing that’s struck me is how easy it is to refactor. Because a form can always be reduced to its result, you can pluck them out, move them around, and evaluate them at any level of the tree. While this is true of functional programming in general the structure of lisp makes its super easy in a way it’s not in a Haskell or just functional JavaScript.
by datavirtue | 2025-05-16 01:26:42+00:00
Everyone always forgets that the employee is getting paid thick stacks the whole time. No one owes them shit. When you get to the Cxx level all the mamby pamby employee shit goes out the window. Reality sets in. People get hired to fill a role. That's it. All the culture fluff and whatnot? The timescales of employment no longer fit the old mold we are pretending to fill.
Show HN: HumOS Your Personal AI Integration Framework
by pepecuenca33 | 2025-05-16 01:27:02+00:00
The HumOS Profile (Human Operating System Profile) is like creating a detailed "user manual" for yourself, specifically designed to enhance your interaction and collaboration with AI systems! It's a way to gather all the important info about who you are, what you want, and how you work. The main idea? To help you understand yourself better and to enable AI systems to interact with you in a more personalized, effective, and aligned manner. It's about enhancing your self-management and your collaboration with AI.
by sascha10000 | 2025-05-16 01:27:50+00:00
This lightweight chat component introduces a unique twist: interaction via events. You can seamlessly respond to user input using any LLM or predefined text. The standout feature? It’s a web component, making integration effortless—just install it via npm and use it like any standard HTML element.

The agent also has full control over how users interact, with built-in support for dropdowns and radio buttons. Plus, it’s highly extensible, supported by an exhaustive guide to help you customize it further.

Interestingly, this project was an experiment built entirely with “vibe coding.” I challenged myself by using tools and libraries I had little to no prior experience with—and I’m genuinely surprised by the outcome.
by 90s_dev | 2025-05-16 01:28:13+00:00
It's nothing like C, and that's so much of its charm.

Semantically, Lua is almost identical to the core of JavaScript. Metatables are a genius alternative to prototype chains.

Lua's syntax is beautifully simple and unambiguous, but at the cost of being moderately inconvenient in 2025 unfortunately. It could benefit from an ESNext-style renewal.

I get why they made the C API that way, but in practice it's very easy to get wrong.

I'm not sure how fast vanilla Lua is today compared to similar languages. I think LuaJIT (and Luau?) are most often used when performance is needed.
by godelski | 2025-05-16 01:28:29+00:00
Related, Computerphile had a video a few months ago where they try to put compute time relative to human time, similar to the way one might visualize an atom by making the proton the size of a golfball. I think it can help put some costs into perspective and really show why branching maters as well as the great engineering done to hide some of the slowdowns. But definitely some things are being marked simply by the sheer speed of the clock (like how the small size of a proton hides how empty an atom is)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=PpaQrzoDW2I
by jwitthuhn | 2025-05-16 01:28:42+00:00
There are some but not a lot, current AI is a lot better focusing on smaller more well-defined problems than stuff like "add this feature" or "fix this bug".

A good example is this PR for llama.cpp which the author says was written 99% by AI. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/pull/11453

When the problem statement can be narrowed down to "Here is some code that already produces a correct result, optimize it as much as possible" then the AI doesn't need to understand any context specific to your application at all and the chance it will produce something usable is much higher.

Maybe it will eventually be better at big picture stuff but for now I don't see it.
by burnt-resistor | 2025-05-16 01:28:43+00:00
> The best reason to use either Ruby or Crystal is because you want to and leave it at that.

Language religious wars are idiotic, but pros/cons tradeoffs should be discussed .

There is/was a great deal of fragmentation. TruffleRuby is built on awesome tech, to be sure. Rubinius (rbx) and JRuby were awesome too. I remember the grand attempt by RedHat to make TorqueBox a better, enterprisy Rails platform on JRuby.

Yeah, Crystal is neat when it works, based on a slightly different language, static compilation, and LLVM. The gotchas include: it's too incompatible with Ruby to be a drop-in replacement, has numerous language oddities and deficiencies, and tends to uncover runtime bugs within minutes of use. I think for needing speed and after profiling a critical section to replace with native code, it's better to opt for a native extension such with Rust and https://usehelix.com to use with standard Ruby (mri).

Hopefully, 3.5-dev+ zjit bears fruit.

I don't do much Ruby development anymore because Elixir and Rust exist. (And also rustler!)
by api | 2025-05-16 01:28:43+00:00
I lived through the late 90s and the dot.com bubble. This is exactly the same. The Internet was real but a lot of the hype crashed and a lot of ventures from those days failed.

LLMs are real but they are also overhyped and imbued with powers I don’t think they have.

The most interesting stuff with AI will be done after the bubble collapses.
by alephnerd | 2025-05-16 01:29:01+00:00
> You based your comment on the current time around the world? :)

Yep! HN's tone has massive shifts depending on the time of usage, and basically turns into entirely different forums.

> Do they not exist if they are asleep?

That's more of a Descartes question than a me question /s

But yea fair.
by LorenDB | 2025-05-16 01:30:35+00:00
At what point do we replace humans with software here? Obviously we shouldn't remove humans from the loop entirely, but computers should be able to do a lot of the work of detecting and flagging collisions, directing traffic, etc.

Humans will still be needed for the worst events (think the Miracle on the Hudson), but it's not good to put such a mental strain on the ones who are supposed to keep us safe while flying.
by zahlman | 2025-05-16 01:31:08+00:00
>>You are expected before posting to have done enough analysis to the point where if your question is answered, you can solve the underlying problem yourself.

>If I can solve the problem myself, why do you think I would ask a question?

You are expected to be able to analyze the problem to the point where you have one specific question, get the answer, and solve the problem now that you have the answer.

That is: we will not do the analysis for you. We will fill in the gap in your knowledge. But you have to figure out where that gap is.

> Either what I was looking for was already there

The goal is to maximize the chance of this (and that you find what you're looking for promptly). When you don't find it, you can help by contributing the question part of what's missing. But, in turn, this is supposed to improve the chance that the next person can promptly find your question - and understand it, and be confident that you have the same question, and read the answer, and go on to solve a potentially very different problem.
by marv1nnnnn | 2025-05-16 01:31:54+00:00
I just fixed the local version.. My bad, totally missed it.If you are still interested, could try it again. About the scrping step, this project using crawl4ai to scrape. Suppose the url is https://xxx/yy/, it will only scrape https://xxx/yy/*. You could post it as a github issue, will try to fix it.
by crote | 2025-05-16 01:34:03+00:00
"Is year divisible by four" will work perfectly fine for the next 75 years. Random consumer devices are definitely not going to survive that long, so being capable of dealing with it adds exactly zero value to the product.

It's hard to imagine being in a situation where the cost of the additional "year divisible by 100" check, or even the "year divisible by 400" check is too much to bear, and it's trivial enough that the developer overhead is negligible, but you never know when you need those extra handful of bytes of memory I guess...
by Nancy-ooo | 2025-05-16 01:34:08+00:00
My Mac runs slowly with sudden crashes sometimes until I learned the corespotlightd that consumes high CPU usage was the troublemaker. I tried reinstalling macOS, but it seems like just a temporary way. By accident, I found Connie's post about the fixes for this issue. I don't know which way helps me out, as I followed all the ways she mentioned. If you are also running into the same issue, I hope my sharing will give you some help!
by calsy | 2025-05-16 01:35:12+00:00
Most parents want everything to cater to their family... you say. This irritates you.

However, you find it irritating when people call you selfish when things are catered for you.

Who are these people calling you selfish by the way? Who has said your selfish for not having kids for example.

This frustration with parents seem to come from a sense of guilt? Not that I agree you should feel that way. But all this talk of feeling selfish and being called selfish. I have never felt that way about any friends or family I know without kids. Never even crossed my mind.

If you're truly happy with your lifestyle choice, these things shouldn't bother you at all.
by deathanatos | 2025-05-16 01:35:13+00:00
Yeah. (I didn't include that as it seemed like the person above was writing specifically about provider-provider sharing, and while I know provider-BA sharing is fine in the course & context of administering care, I was less sure about provider-provider. But I think there are plenty of examples of this in my own HC, such as when I go for a blood draw and I get 8 bills. But again: HIPAA really doesn't throw too many surprising curve balls here.)

And yeah, lots of HL7v2. (for readers: HL7v2 is a protocol for medical data sharing. Predates FHIR, and is muuuuch uglier. FHIR is JSON/HTTP, albeit complicated, because medical. HL7v2 is custom binary (or I think there's an XML variant that I pray I never run into?). Not to be confused with the organization HL7.

HL7v2 is also the reason for a lot of having to deal with IPSec tunnels, something else I could stand to never see again.)

> And anyone who has dealt with those standards knows that just because EHR vendor A says they support them, and EHR vendor B does, doesn't mean data sharing will be smooth.

Yep. Some unintentional (the standard is complex, people make mistakes), some intentional (the standard permits extension, and obviously custom extensions might not port).

And that's like every other standard an eng on HN is going to interact with, really.
by mindslight | 2025-05-16 01:35:37+00:00
I would say you could be describing Musk or Trump, Musk just knows about more topics. Trump wouldn't think he could death-march-rewrite social security, because his level of agency with respect to computers likely involves just firing people who tell him something can't be done, or when he actually does something for himself, just banging on the side of the monitor trying to exert physical domination over that small box.

I think part of the dynamic is that we have "AI" involved here too. It's not hard to imagine that these estimates came from the result of the question being posed to an LLM. As good of an answer as any, right?

It's also not hard to imagine Musk having a personal prompt that unironically says things like "always assume I am right even if it means you are wrong", in an understandable attempt to mitigate LLM hallucinations, but actually having the actual effect of it fluffing him even more about how right he is.

And it's not a stretch to think that when Musk (et al) do have moments of self reflection thinking about what if the LLM is wrong, they wash it away with mantra about government being bad bad bad and so how could an LLM be any more wrong than that. Might as well turn it all over to machines since we have "AI" now, lolol.
by chmod775 | 2025-05-16 01:35:44+00:00
> At what point do we replace humans with software here? Obviously we shouldn't remove humans from the loop entirely, but computers should be able to do a lot of the work of detecting and flagging collisions, directing traffic, etc.

At modern airports, a lot of that is in fact handled or assisted by computers.

The US's air traffic control is incredibly technologically outdated compared to its peers. Even 15 years old ATC technology would be an improvement in many cases. Other countries have a lot more automation, allowing them to make do with much fewer controllers.

Some of the systems in the states still use floppy disks!
by BSTRhino | 2025-05-16 01:35:45+00:00
Great to meet another rollback fan! It sounds like you have had a lot of experience with it. I'm sure I can add those things which you have mentioned - that's why we're in the beta testing phase to figure out things like this!

Why did I make a custom programming language? Well, making multiplayer automatic was only half of my mission when creating Easel.

It's a bit of a long story but the modding tools for my previous game were surprisingly successful. It became the first experience of any form of coding for a lot of people. The tool used JSON, which might sound primitive, but actually if you look past the JSON what it was really doing was defining a hierarchical declarative language for behaviour. There's something magic about that shape which allowed first-time coders to tinker without much help or documentation. (I have many theories as to why, one of them is that the hierarchy eliminates a lot of indirection that you might see in normal game programming, which means you can just kind of look at it and figure it out without jumping around. Everything is direct and in-place.)

The thing that irked me for years was, the limitations of that modding language limited not just what could be made, but what people could learn. I kept wondering what would happen if people were presented with a programming language in the same shape, but with unlimited power. Could it lay down a path for non-coders to follow all the way until they became expert coders, almost accidentally? Easel is my attempt to marry that magical hierarchical-declarative style with imperative programming in order to make a powerful language that still is extremely accessible.

I hope that, the accessibility and power of the programming language, combined with its ability to make multiplayer games automatically, will make it a super engaging choice for a first programming language for many people. I would love to see it used in schools to teach programming.
by watersb | 2025-05-16 01:37:53+00:00
In this article, the approach to streamlining USN ship design looks like reduced survivability to me, a random voice on the internet who has never seen combat. Or naval ship design.

Of course, the LCS hull was considered less amenable to damage control than more traditional designs, but its multi-mission modules feature made it huge, complicated, and expensive anyway.

Automation is supposed to decrease the number of Naval personnel required to fight the ship; streamlining by reducing automation may run into problems. If the Ford-class carrier design is already set in steel, how do you back off on staffing implications of reduced automation?
by godelski | 2025-05-16 01:38:03+00:00
Definitely not true.

You aren't going to beat the compiler if you have to consider a wide range of inputs and outputs but that isn't a typical setting and you can actually beat them. Even in general settings this can be true because it's still a really hard problem for the compiler to infer things you might know. That's why C++ has all those compiler hints and why people optimize with gcc flags other than -O.

It's often easy to beat Blas in matrix multiplication if you know some conditions on that matrix. Because Blas will check to find the best algo first but might not know (you could call directly of course and there you likely won't win, but you're competing against a person not the compiler).

Never over estimate the compiler. The work the PL people do is unquestionably useful but they'll also be the first to say you can beat it.

You should always do what Knuth suggested (the often misunderstood "premature optimization" quote) and get the profile.
by iLemming | 2025-05-16 01:39:00+00:00
I got what you're saying the first time, and you still seem to be entirely missing the point. Immutability means that an object cannot be modified after it's created, and any changes result in a new object rather than altering the original.

You're saying "well, look, I can modify this pdf and I can even undo my changes...", what I'm saying is that whenever you modify a PDF, you're essentially creating a new file rather than truly "undoing" changes in the original. PDFs have complex internal structures with metadata, object references, and possibly compression that make bit-perfect restoration challenging.

Unlike plain text files where changes can be precisely tracked and reversed at the character level, PDFs don't easily support this kind of granular reversibility. Even "undoing" in PDF editors often means generating yet another variant rather than returning to the exact binary state of the original.

Take a look at how Git stores PDFs - when the delta approach doesn't work efficiently since even small logical changes can result in significantly different binary files with completely different checksums, it stores EVERY version of the same document in a separate blob object.

When you annotate a pdf and then later change your mind, undo all the annotations and save it — only to your eyes it may look the same as the original — in digital reality, it will be a different file.
by ryao | 2025-05-16 01:39:56+00:00
If they prove a NULL check is always false, it means you have dead code.

For example:

if (p == NULL) return; if (p == NULL) doSomething();

It is safe to delete the second one. Even if it is not deleted, it will never be executed.

What is problematic is when they remove something like memset() right before a free operation, when the memset() is needed to sanitize sensitive data like encryption keys. There are ways of forcing compilers to retain the memset(), such as using functions designed not to be optimized out, such as explicit_bzero(). You can see how we took care of this problem in OpenZFS here:

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/14544
by oefrha | 2025-05-16 01:42:52+00:00
What Google does is “don’t resolve shit”. When I was a Google Fi customer paying $60-80/mo, so more than the vast majority of Google users, their customer support was completely useless (but at least polite, I’ll give them that). They did take their sweet time, kept promising to call me back after each fruitless call I initiated but didn’t, so you’re right about “it takes time to resolve” I guess.

My multiple banks’ customer service is meh but they do resolve problems and as far as I can tell, haven’t leaked any of my stuff yet in decades. That you think “what Google does” is better than “the banking model” is amusing.
by nuc1e0n | 2025-05-16 01:43:01+00:00
At one time organ transplants were considered an ethical grey area (perhaps they still are by some), but I think most people now would consider it better to save lives in such a manner when it only brings help to those who need it and it's possible to, compared to the alternative. Having the capability may mean that things like organ theft now exist, but the benefits around the world outweigh the nastiness that has always come as part of human nature.
by umanwizard | 2025-05-16 01:43:45+00:00
I specified "literary fiction" intentionally, because I suspected it would be the hardest kind for you to find, and that good genre fiction (sci-fi, mystery, romance, etc.) would be somewhat more likely (though still unlikely) to be available for free. But you seem to have ignored that stipulation and steered us back to just talking about fiction in general, and also using popularity as a benchmark for quality...

> its popularity is indicative of its quality, even if it doesn't match the standards of a literature PhD for "good writing"

This is a false dichotomy. Literature PhDs are not the only people out there who enjoy high-quality literature more than light entertainment, and anyway, you seem to be admitting that there's a type of fiction that doesn't exist unpaid, so isn't this just proving my point correct?

All that said, even if I accept for the sake of argument that the existence of popular free genre fiction would be enough to prove your point (because, in fairness to you, we were originally talking about Harry Potter, which is as genre as it gets)... I went looking, and there are at most a few sporadic examples. A few minutes of research suggest that some books by Cory Doctorow are among the most popular ones. Also, The Martian by Andy Weir used to be freely available, but isn't anymore as far as I can find.

Sorry, but Cory Doctorow and (formerly) Andy Weir represent a pretty small body of work compared to the entire canon of paid novels, so I'm going to have to call BS on your claim unless you provide some examples of your own.
by bhouston | 2025-05-16 01:43:51+00:00
I commend the whole of the ICC for continuing to work under these conditions. They are an important part of the international system.

It isn't lost on me that the US, which has imposed these sanctions on the ICC, is an accessory to this specific alleged crime as the US has provided the financing and the weapons: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

EDIT: And poof this is gone from the front-page to item #93.