MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sothatsit | 2025-06-17 03:37:41+00:00
I feel like the better approach would be to throw away PRs when they're bad, edit your prompt, and then let the agent try again using the new prompt. Throwing lots of wasted compute at a problem seems like a luxury take on coding agents, as these agents can be really expensive.

So the process becomes: Read PR -> Find fundamental issues -> Update prompt to guide agent better -> Re-run agent.

Then your job becomes proof-reading and editing specification documents for changes, reviewing the result of the agent trying to implement that spec, and then iterating on it until it is good enough. This comes from the belief that better, more expensive, agents will usually produce better code than 5 cheaper agents running in parallel with some LLM judge to choose between or combine their outputs.
by metaphor | 2025-06-17 03:37:46+00:00
The 9 footer in the video should weight around ~25 lbs, good for around 4-5 lbs of consumable meat...not a bad harvest considering level of effort to butcher relative to, say, deer.

Acknowledged on the potential excessive human consumption hazard and gaminess, but I'd like to think it's still possible for one man's trash to be another's prospective opportunity.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-06-17 03:38:05+00:00
It kind of is though?

Suppose a third party app wants to make screen captures. Windows prevents it, because otherwise it could do the same thing to Netflix and capture the video. The thing preventing the app from bypassing that constraint is DRM.

Whereas suppose Microsoft wants to distribute an update to the video rendering code in Windows. It will have access to the data on the screen because it's the thing converting it into pixels, so Microsoft signs the new code with their private keys and distributes it to your PC and it gets access to what's on your screen. Which they could also do with code designed to exfiltrate it.
by viraptor | 2025-06-17 03:38:48+00:00
> It's something you can pick in a few minutes

You can start in a few minutes, sure. (Also you can start using gdb in minutes) But GP is talking about the ceiling. Do you know which models work better for what kind of task? Do you know what format is better for extra files? Do you know when it's beneficial to restart / compress context? Are you using single prompts or multi stage planning trees? How are you managing project-specific expectations? What type of testing gives better results in guiding the model? What kind of issues are more common for which languages?

Correct prompting these days what makes a difference in tasks like SWE-verified.
by sagarpatil | 2025-06-17 03:40:44+00:00
Yeah, you can’t do sh*t in an hour. I spend a good 6-8 hours every day using Claude Code, and I actually spend an hour every day trying new AI tools, it’s a constant process.

Here’s what my today’s task looks like: 1. Test TRAE/Refact.ai/Zencoder: 70% on SWE verified 2. https://github.com/kbwo/ccmanager: use git tree to manage multiple Claude Code sessions 3. https://github.com/julep-ai/julep/blob/dev/AGENTS.md: Read and implement 4. https://github.com/snagasuri/deebo-prototype: Autonomous debugging agent (MCP) 5. https://github.com/claude-did-this/claude-hub: connects Claude Code to GitHub repositories.
by gchamonlive | 2025-06-17 03:41:09+00:00
It's like the nihilist denying any meaning to the world. It's because they choose to see it that way even if they aren't aware of it.

If you choose to fart around, whatever that means, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Since there's no salvation, farts are also meaningless, and at the same time totally meaningful given the circumstances.
by bongodongobob | 2025-06-17 03:41:41+00:00
Nah, if you think you want to do it, do it, and I think a lot of people would benefit from a little peer pressure of having a half dose. It's all social stigma, all of the fear is from bullshit stories of turning into a glass of orange juice: that shit doesn't happen. Take a half hit of acid and you'll wish you took more. Every person I've I introduced it to has agreed. It's not that big of a deal. You aren't going to wreck your brain. It's not something that will ALTER YOUR LIFE PERMANENTLY!!! It's a drug and you'll be fuckin fine.

It very much IS set and setting and the powers that be really want to fuck up the set. Try it. You won't regret it.
by almostgotcaught | 2025-06-17 03:42:49+00:00
Sure - I agree that LLVM is mostly reasonable - I'm just saying I don't think has to do with the design of the IR itself and is primarily because of convention/code quality/stewardship. Like to ask my question more precisely: can you give me an example of an IR design that didn't "isolate ugliness"?

Edit: I'm being rate limited so here's what I wanted to post in response:

You kept talking about LLVM and I just assumed LLVM IR but this thing (different rules before and after regalloc) is exactly the case for LLVM's MIR (even going so far as no longer being SSA after a certain part of the pipeline). And in fact I have a PR hanging out right now for adding a legalization for GISel (which also operates on MIR) that crashes in exactly the way you say it shouldn't - I run my legalizer and it's fine and dandy and then somewhere down the line (another legalizer) there's a null dereference. So I guess LLVM isn't reasonable everywhere! And also I should take a think about the differences between LLVMIR and MIR.
by bigiain | 2025-06-17 03:43:08+00:00
The "old wisdom" on comp/lang.perl.misc, when new people asked what was the best IDE to Perl programming, was "Unix".

You get both editors to choose from, vi _and_ emacs! All the man pages you could possibly want _and_ perldocs! Of _course_ as a Perl newbie you'll be able to fall back on gdb for complicated debugging where print statements no longer cut it.
by colonial | 2025-06-17 03:43:31+00:00
To some extent, sure - but Rust leans heavily on static analysis even for "simple" code. Something as fundamental as File::open is still generic over "types that can be coerced into a &Path" - which is obviously useful, but it probably means you would need to implement a lot of the type system (+ stubbed out borrow/reference semantics?) just to get rustc's parser bootstrapped.

This is actually tenable for C, though - so maybe you could cook up some sort of C -> C++ -> LLVM -> rustc bootstrap.
by bee_rider | 2025-06-17 03:44:46+00:00
Of course, it sort of a joke, and so having an element of surprise helps it. But really, the properties that make a number “interesting” should probably be defined from the outset. By including “the smallest member of any set is interesting,” at the start, the joke is kind of blown because the result becomes obvious, right?

Edit: oh, are there uninteresting reals?
by marssaxman | 2025-06-17 03:44:58+00:00
So far as I can tell, generative AI coding tools make the easy part of the job go faster, without helping with the hard part of the job - in fact, possibly making it harder. Coding just doesn't take that much time, and I don't need help doing it. You could make my coding output 100x faster without materially changing my overall productivity, so I simply don't bother to optimize there.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-06-17 03:45:10+00:00
This is possibly the most dysfunctional, toxic, nihilistic, and Machiavellian advice regarding the topic of "How to Deal with a Bad Manager?", or any related topic therein, I have ever encountered.

I do not author this lightly and hope by doing so it provides an impetus for introspection.

Do with this intervention what you wish.

EDIT:

I do not know you nor your situation, work or otherwise.

What I do know is pain.

The post to which I responded has many pain indicators, or at least that is what I see when reading it. Perhaps I am just projecting though.

In the event I am not experiencing a form of projection, here is what I would like to share:

1) Holding onto pain only embeds it further into one's life. 2) "Retribution" does not alleviate one's own pain, but instead increases it. 3) Codependency can be toxic and addictive. 4) Most importantly: happiness is a choice.

The last one can be both the most obvious and most difficult to internalize.
by CitrusFruits | 2025-06-17 03:45:48+00:00
I had a bad manager at a previous job, although they were just more incompetent than actively trying to micromanage.

I managed to get onto another team by making connections internally. I think showing initiative, interest, and promise to another tech lead or manager in their area could go a long way.

That being said, even after switching teams I eventually left for another job and took a big pay cut for it, but was totally worth it for my sanity.
by sagarpatil | 2025-06-17 03:46:07+00:00
I always use Claude Code to debug issues, there’s no point in trying to do this yourself when AI can fix it in minutes (easy to verify if you write tests first) o3 with new search can do things in 5 mins that will take me at least 30 mins if I’m very efficient. Say what you want but the time savings is real.
by SissyphusXOXO | 2025-06-17 03:46:26+00:00
> And most importantly you have to write. A lot. Writing allows our brain to structure our thinking.

Not to be pedantic, but I’d still argue that thinking is the most important. At least when understanding the nature of learning. I mean, writing is ultimately great because it facilitates high quality thinking. You essentially say this yourself.

Overall, I think it’s more helpful to understand the learning process as promoting high quality thinking (encoding if you want to be technical). This sort of explains why teaching others, argumentation, mind-mapping, good note-taking, and other activities and techniques are great for learning as well.
by 15123123 | 2025-06-17 03:46:32+00:00
I am also interested in how much of these skills are at the mercy of OpenAI ? Like IIRC 1 or 2 years ago there was an uproar of AI "artists" saying that their art is ruined because of model changes ( or maybe the system prompt changed ).

>I do not agree it is something you can pick up in an hour.

But it's also interesting that the industry is selling the opposite ( with AI anyone can code / write / draw / make music ).

>You have to learn what AI is good at.

More often than not I find it you need to learn what the AI is bad at, and this is not a fun experience.
by sothatsit | 2025-06-17 03:46:39+00:00
I feel like there is also a very high ceiling to how much scaffolding you can produce for the agents to get them to work better. This includes custom prompts, custom CLAUDE.md files, other documentation files for Claude to read, and especially how well and quickly your linting and tests can run, and how much functionality they cover. That's not to mention MCP and getting Claude to talk to your database or open your website using Playwright, which I have not even tried yet.

For example, I have a custom planning prompt that I will give a paragraph or two of information to, and then it will produce a specification document from that by searching the web and reading the code and documentation. And then I will review that specification document before passing it back to Claude Code to implement the change.

This works because it is a lot easier to review a specification document than it is to review the final code changes. So, if I understand it and guide it towards how I would want the feature to be implemented at the specification stage, that sets me up to have a much easier time reviewing the final result as well. Because it will more closely match my own mental model of the codebase and how things should be implemented.

And it feels like that is barely scratching the surface of setting up the coding environment for Claude Code to work in.
by gchamonlive | 2025-06-17 03:46:43+00:00
My point is, even though there is no unsafe dose of LSD, bad trips are real and can totally lock yourself out of it psychologically.

My advice has to be very careful in order not to incentivise unprepared people who would otherwise have a great trip. We have to be responsible, even if it'll only gonna negatively affect a very small percentage of them. Applied philosophy of care 100%

Other than that, I totally agree.
by pizlonator | 2025-06-17 03:47:09+00:00
> you're saying the same thing i'm saying - the question/issue arises from value numbering and naming. see "engineering a compiler" page ~400 where they discuss the benefits of SSA for value numbering: https://imgur.com/a/bPabq7D

We're definitely not saying the same thing, because to me, the post's claim about the benefits of SSA for flow analysis are obvious and unobjectionable, whereas you raised an objection.

> it is - the allusion/claim in the post is that SSA is sparse because you don't need to keep track of facts/metadata for all variables at all program points. that's because of the same thing: SSA uniquely locates/identifies values and therefore you can uniquely map between SSA ids and metadata. so you don't need to have a table of stuff that's updated at every program point (like you do in dense analysis), just along control-flow/operand/result edges.

So then what were you talking about when you said, "Not sure what this has to do with SSA or not?". Seems like you're now trying to explain to me exactly what this has to do with SSA or not.
by reactordev | 2025-06-17 03:47:25+00:00
The only thing that works is to roll up your sleeve and take ownership of your deliverables on a level that management wants to see. Provide the manager with all the reports and communication ammunition they require. Once they feel comfortable that you understand their needs, they will leave you alone. Until higher ups decide to go a different direction again.

This is the only way if you want to stay.

Most people won’t tolerate it and will leave. Watch for turnover.
by jcranmer | 2025-06-17 03:47:30+00:00
Many passes in LLVM tend to assume that the IR is in some sort of poorly-defined canonical form. For example a loop transformation might bother to only handle loops where the latch and exiting block are one and the same, or assume the existence of a dedicated loop preheader. In principle, this dependency on canonical form should only be one where code is less optimal if the code isn't canonical, but compilers are big, complex things, so it should be no surprise that sometimes the noncanonical IR ends up causing crashes or miscompiles.
by jiggawatts | 2025-06-17 03:47:50+00:00
My take on this is diametrically opposite to the “swearing is never okay” crowd here — if you’re not swearing about your work at least occasionally under your breath, you don’t care enough for me to enjoy collaborating with you.

People will immediately start arguing against this stance while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of Linus Torvalds caring enough about Linux kernel quality to use colourful language to encourage others to take critical issues as seriously as he does.
by SlowTao | 2025-06-17 03:50:06+00:00
In a way I am not too worried about the ISA, but having a set boot system that you can target the system with. This is where x86 still wins and ARM have dropped the ball. You can boot something like FreeDOS on an 8086 or the latest i9 with the exact same code base thanks to BIOS compatibility. But with ARM you are looking at hundreds of different targets.

The issue with ARM looks to be creeping into Risc V because anyone can make an additional processor entirely to their own target. For better or worse.

A standard boot target is much more useful to the end user than an open chip behind yet another boot standard. That I am praising the mediocre and closed x86 for this is a little showing of how bad the situation can be.
by nine_k | 2025-06-17 03:50:45+00:00
Tannerire, when crushed, initiates a small explosion, which triggers the C4. When a python swallows a rabbit, it then crushes the rabbit's body with its powerful muscles, to help the digestion. This is when the explosion would happen.

This is my best understanding. I have no idea where inside a rabbit there would be room enough for the C4 and tannerite, and how to put it inside enough rabbits.
by keiferski | 2025-06-17 03:50:47+00:00
People often assume that a spiritual experience is by-definition somehow supernatural, but it makes sense to me that it would need to functionally have a wiring system in order to actually work.

In other words, even if you assume that the vision of God/feeling of divine presence/etc. is valid, there are two methods of implementation: either it’s done in a supernatural way that defies physics and logic; or it’s done in a way that accords with the structure of reality (as in, chemically.)

The latter seems a lot more elegant to me, IMO.
by mionhe | 2025-06-17 03:51:50+00:00
I worry that both sides of the political spectrum are doing the same thing: de-humanizing people with different points of view.

I'm sure everyone knows what Voltaire said about this: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Is there any chance we can return to the idea that people can disagree with us without being dead to us afterward?
by bcrosby95 | 2025-06-17 03:51:55+00:00
I'm not sure we write good tests for this because we assume some kind of logic involved here. If you set a human to task to write a procedure to send a 'forgot password' email, I can be reasonably sure there's a limited number of things a human would do with the provided email address, because it takes time and effort to do more than you should.

However with an LLM I'm not so sure. So how will you write a test to validate this is done but also guarantee it doesn't add the email to a blacklist? A whitelist? A list of admin emails? Or the tens of other things you can do with an email within your system?
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-06-17 03:52:22+00:00
The speed of sqlite3 is good

Something like

echo "select datetime(time,'unixepoch'),id from t1"|sqlite3 0.db

Sometimes I need to convert dates in text files to or from unixepoch^1

IME, this is at least 2x as slow as converting dates with sqlite3

For example, I have a text file with the following format

domainname ipv4-address # unixepoch

I use a simple filter something like this ("yy094")

/* strftime<-->strptime */ int fileno (FILE *); FILE *f; #define jmp (yy_start)=1+2* #include <time.h> char *strptime(const char *s, const char *f, struct tm *tm); struct tm t; typedef long int time_t; time_t xt; char zt[26]; struct tm *yt; a Mon|Tue|Wed|Thu|Fri|Sat|Sun d (0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01]) b Jan|Feb|Mar|Apr|May|Jun|Jul|Aug|Sep|Oct|Nov|Dec m 0[1-9]|1[012] Y 19[2-9][0-9]|[2-9][0-9]{3} H [0-9]{2} M [0-9]{2} S [0-9]{2} Z [+-][0-9]{2,4}|[A-EG-KMNPSTUWZh]{2,3}[CTAK] int xd70f5083A() { printf("%ld",mktime(&t)); return 0; } int x2146ea7d() { xt=atoi(yytext); if((xt<-2147483646)||(xt>2147483648)) {fwrite(yytext,1,yyleng,yyout);goto s;} yt=localtime(&xt); strftime(zt,sizeof(zt),"%d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %Z",yt); fwrite(zt,sizeof(zt),1,stdout); return 0; s:return 1; } %option nounput noinput noyywrap %% [12][0-9]{9} { x2146ea7d(); } {d}[ ]{b}[ ]{Y}[ ]{H}:{M}:{S}[ ]{Z} { strptime(yytext,"%d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %Z",&t); xd70f5083A(); } {d}[ ]{b}[ ]{Y}[ ]{H}:{M}:{S} { strptime(yytext,"%d %b %Y %H:%M:%S",&t); xd70f5083A(); } {a}[ ]{b}[ ]{d}[ ]{H}:{M}:{S}[ ]UTC[ ]{Y} { strptime(yytext,"%a %b %d %H:%M:%S UTC %Y",&t); xd70f5083A(); } {Y}-{m}-{d}T{H}:{M}:{S} { strptime(yytext,"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S",&t); xd70f5083A(); } {Y}-{m}-{d}[ ]{H}:{M}:{S} { strptime(yytext,"%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S",&t); xd70f5083A(); } .|\n+ fwrite(yytext,1,yyleng,yyout); %% int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { if(argc>1)if(argv[1]) if(argv[1][0]==45) if(argv[1][1]==104) { putc(10,stdout); puts(" usage: yy094 < file"); puts(" zones: UTC only"); puts(" range: 09 Sep 2001 01:46:40 - 19 Jan 2038 03:14:07"); puts(" input formats:"); puts(" 2147483647"); puts(" 09 Sep 2001 01:46:40"); puts(" 09 Sep 2001 01:46:40 UTC"); puts(" 2001 Sep 09 01:46:40"); puts(" 2001-Sep-09T01:46:40"); puts(" 09 Sep 2001 01:46:40 UTC"); puts(" Sun Sep 09 01:46:40 UTC 2001"); puts(" output formats:"); puts(" 19 Jan 2038 03:14:07 UTC"); putc(10,stdout); goto x; } yylex(); x:exit(0); }
by bigbuppo | 2025-06-17 03:52:36+00:00
Don't try to argue with those using AI coding tools. They don't interact well with actual humans, which is why they've been relegated to talking to the computer. We'll eventually have them all working on some busy projects to help with "marketing" to keep them distracted while the decent programmers that can actually work in a team environment can get back to useful work free of the terrible programmers and marketing departments.
by VladVladikoff | 2025-06-17 03:52:58+00:00
Interesting concept. Sort of a terribly written article. Things the author should have talked about: 1) comparison between life expectancy of a lithium ion battery vs a sand battery

2) environmental impact of lithium ion battery waste, vs sand battery.

3) ethics of lithium mining.

4) how lithium ion batteries perform poorly at colder temperatures (eg Finland)

There are a lot of strong arguments for these batteries the author seemed to just skip over, and instead focused on costs, which they don’t know the answer to.
by Aziell | 2025-06-17 03:53:12+00:00
Something I’ve been thinking about is whether it’s partly because people sometimes don’t really know how to describe what they’re feeling, so they end up putting those emotions onto objects. It kind of helps make sense of feelings that are hard to explain.

At the same time, I wonder if it’s always a good thing. Like, what happens if you lose or break something you’ve gotten really attached to? Could that make the anxiety worse?

Curious if anyone here has seen this or has any personal experience.
by pizlonator | 2025-06-17 03:54:02+00:00
In my experience with compilers where phase ordering causes fires, it's exactly to do with the IR.

Because I don't want to pick on others (as much fun as that would be), I'll just pick on compilers I wrote that have this property and how much I regret everything I did there.

- The first compiler IR I designed was called Fiji C1, and it had both an SSA form and a not-SSA form, and it had multiple stages of lowering within the same IR. You absolutely could not breathe on the phase order without destroying everything.

- I'm maybe like mostly responsible for JavaScriptCore's DFG IR, which has a LoadStore form, a ThreadedCPS form, and an SSA form, plus maybe other forms too. And there are many phases in there that serve the purpose of carefully lowering some aspect of type speculation. Foolish is the man who tries to mess with the order of those phases.

- The Assembly IR in JavaScriptCore's top tier JIT has different laws before and after regalloc, and before and after stack alloc. That's maybe inevitable and like not too bad since it also has a small number of phases, but still.

Note that in each of these cases, it absolutely is an IR issue. It's not like there were some rules that I failed to follow. It's that I designed the compiler specifically to have an IR that follows different laws in different parts of the pipeline.
by BLKNSLVR | 2025-06-17 03:54:04+00:00
Why not in your 70s? Purely due to being more physically fragile, or more spiritually "settled"?

Would it make a difference if it was a 70 year old who is still open minded and curious about life, the universe, and everything? (given that I'd guess that any 70+ year old willing to do LSD is likely to be as per this description).

Legitimately interested in your answer / reasoning (mainly because my plan was to experience a number of different drugs once the rest of my life, that could have been put at risk by drugs, is kinda setup and done well enough).
by trhway | 2025-06-17 03:54:04+00:00
On the way to benefit all humanity MS helped Sam back then, and now MS will get to wake up to the real Sam :)

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

“OpenAI executives have considered accusing Microsoft, the company's major backer, of anticompetitive behavior in their partnership …

OpenAI's effort could involve seeking a federal regulatory review of the terms of its contract with Microsoft for potential violations of antitrust law, as well as a public campaign,…“