MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by danielser | 2025-09-28 19:28:26+00:00
I came here looking for partial solutions to fill gaps in our own attempts at CodeMode service. However I'll give you some hope ;)

> Later I want to see what'd happen if you give the LLM a repo of sorts to store useful snippets and functions with comments for later use. So the LLM itself would save workflows, be able to import them into the Deno environment and chain those together.

OMG this is the first thing you should do. We have similar now and its freaking amazing. Just discussing yesterday how I can't remember it going off the rails since implementing automem last week even.

Best thing it does, fully recaps all your daily accomplishments, across all platforms (Claude Code, Claude Desktop, ChatGPT, Cursor).

https://i.postimg.cc/Z0tYGKvf/Screenshot-2025-09-28-at-3-15-... https://i.postimg.cc/SQX6bTzV/Screenshot-2025-09-28-at-3-16-...

Called Automem by a friend of my (Jack Arturo), currently closed-source, though I'm sure you could reverse engineer it enough.

- its a hosted stack of FalkorDB + QDrant - has endpoints for creating/retrieving memories - embeds stuff using ChatGPT models - Uses Graph nodes for relating memories together - Has a dream/sleeping phase which degrades long term memory relevant, finds and tracks patterns and more. - Has an MCP which connects any AI directly to memory - Automated hooks which record memory queues on commit, deploy, learning moments - Automated storing of all queued memories on chat end. - A lot more magic under the hood too.

So in reality you get a near biological memory, useful by any MCP agent. To be fair Jack has about a 2 month head start on the rest of us with this idea haha.

--

The setup were building will be an always running setup, so it also has a scheduling runtime in Node that uses MD files to create automatable workflows, some uses agents, some just run bash. They can call mcps, tools, run commands, log output, use automem etc, all in human readable text.

https://i.postimg.cc/Y246Bnmx/Screenshot-2025-09-28-at-3-11-... https://i.postimg.cc/ThM2zY5Z/Screenshot-2025-09-28-at-3-17-... https://i.postimg.cc/vT6H26T7/Screenshot-2025-09-28-at-3-17-...

PS Keep up the great work on your codemode service, got some great ideas from yours to incorporate to ours that should resolve the one or 2 issues we had outstanding. Will share if I get it working, https://github.com/danieliser/code-mode if it gets any where
by niekb | 2025-09-28 19:29:17+00:00
(Author here.) That is a good question. For our use case, we in fact do not use std::shared_ptr in our implementation, but instead a single-threaded shared_ptr-like class that has no atomics (to avoid cross-core contention). However, when I wrote the blog-post, I replaced that not-so-well-known class by std::shared_ptr for the sake of accessibility of the blogpost for a general c++ audience, but by doing so, it indeed becomes a natural question to ask why one wouldn't use std::weak_ptr (which I hadn't realised when writing the post).

One reason why this design can still be beneficial when using the standard std::shared_ptr in its implementation, is when you do not want to manage the pointee object by a std::shared_ptr (which is a requirement if you want to use std::weak_ptr). E.g., if you want to ensure that multiple objects of that type are laid out next to each other in memory, instead of scattered around the heap.

Another goal of the post is to show this idea, namely to use a shared_ptr<T*> (instead of shared_ptr<T>), which is kind of non-standard, but can be (as I hope I convinced you) sometimes useful.
by WalterSear | 2025-09-28 19:29:58+00:00
AI is not my coworker, with different tasks and responsibilities.

The comparison is oniy reasonable if most of your job is spent trying to understand their code, and make sure it did what you wanted. And with them standing next to you, ready to answer questons, explain anything I don't understand and pull in any external, relevant parts of the codebase.
by AlecSchueler | 2025-09-28 19:30:27+00:00
> Russian air assets never crossed NATO airspace until this September.

Yes, they had. ACLED reports[0] that it occurred 50 times since 2022, and 4 of them had already been in Poland. It just never became a huge news piece until September, that's exactly what I mean.

0: https://acleddata.com/expert-comment/acled-data-show-least-5...
by armchairhacker | 2025-09-28 19:30:55+00:00
What would you buy with $400k/yr?

I define a “great” standard of living as roughly: nutritious food (basic meat, vegetables, spices); a home apartment in an area without excessive crime, noise, or pollution; medical care; a couple weeks of vacation per year; ability to frequently purchase cheap things like video games, movie tickets, takeout; ability to rarely purchase more expensive things like high-end technology, quality furniture, very fancy meals; some choice of more frequent vacations, a better apartment/location, fancier everyday food, more things; and everything we take for granted (water, electricity, clean clothes, etc.).

Listing it out it’s actually quite a lot. But is it $400k? I really doubt it (very likely even $100k is more than enough, though inflation will change that). If you or a family member has health issues you may need this much, but that’s the exception (and a failure of health insurance and altruism…)
by sxp | 2025-09-28 19:31:11+00:00
There is a strong chance that there are no actual "drones" involved and these sightings are just due to random people mistaking airplanes as drones/UFOs: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1971656713230270794

When people have analyzed the flight logs, the sightings match with known planes: https://x.com/ThomasH_Synth/status/1972236703864586463

https://x.com/MickWest is a good source to follow since he and others are willing to actually track down the data related to UFOs.
by keeda | 2025-09-28 19:31:14+00:00
We most definitely should, especially so if you're working in a team or organization bigger than a handful of people. Because it's almost certain that you may need to change or interact with that code very soon in the lifetime of the project. When that happens you want to make sure the code aligns with your own mental model of how things work.

The industry has institutionalized this by making code reviews a very standard best practice. People think of code reviews mainly as a mechanism to reduce bugs, but turns out the biggest benefits (born out by studies) actually are better context-sharing amongst the team, mentoring junior engineers, and onboarding of new team-mates. It ensures that everyone has the same mental model of the system despite working on different parts of it (c.f. the story of the blind men and the elephant.) This results in better ownership and fewer defects per line of code.

Note, this also doesn't mean everybody reviews each and every PR. But any non-trivial PR should be reviewed by team-mates with appropriate context.
by theginger | 2025-09-28 19:31:20+00:00
This appears to be backfiring spectacularly. It is a shame in many ways because a decent digital ID system would be very beneficial. The problem is the approach is completely wrong. There are already 10+ competing ID system which are now largely digital. A solution on how to bring all that together done well could make things significantly more secure by reducing the attack surface and make it much more reliable.

Instead it looks like they are going for 1 more competing system, the implementation of which will be steered by politics and ideology rather than technology and technical requirements.
by LeifCarrotson | 2025-09-28 19:31:24+00:00
Honestly, I think it's a good thing it's insulated by a couple miles of hills and trees from I-94. The relentless noise of the highway would be absolutely terrible for the beach.

I actually stopped to stretch my legs and bag another national park at the Indiana Dunes National Park last Friday on my way back to Michigan from Wisconsin. Maybe AI was in a sour mood due to my poor decision to drive through Chicago from 3 to 6pm on a Friday, but I wasn't that impressed - Holland, Muskegon, Hoffmaster, Silver Lake, or Ludington State Parks up the Michigan coastline are all superior.

It only looks fantastic though a Chicagoan or Hoosier perspective because the rest of the area is a rust belt.
by godelski | 2025-09-28 19:31:53+00:00
(Adding to your comment, not disagreeing)

> The argument is that this technology leads people to be careless.

And this will always be a result of human preference optimization. There's a simple fact: humans prefer lies that they don't know are lies over lies that they do know are lies.

We can't optimize for an objective truth when that objective truth doesn't exist. So while doing our best to align our models they must simultaneously optimize they ability to deceive us. There's little to no training in that loop where outputs are deeply scrutinized, because we can't scale that type of evaluation. We end up rewarding models that are incorrect in their output.

We don't optimize for correctness, we optimize for the appearance of correctness. We can't confuse the two.

The result is: when LLMs make errors, those errors are difficult for humans you detect.

This results in a fundamentally dangerous tool, does it not? Tools that when they error or fail they do so safely and loudly. Instead this one fails silently. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use the tool but that you need to do so with an abundance of caution.

> I could slow down and review it line-by-line, picking all the nits, but that moves against the grain of the tool.

Actually the big problem I have with coding with LLMs is that it increases my cognitive load, not decreases it. Bring over worked results in carelessness. Who among us does not make more mistakes when they are tired or hungry?

That's the opposite of lazy, so hopefully answers OP.
by lblume | 2025-09-28 19:32:02+00:00
I also got used to it, but especially when writing short scripts that generate numbered files it gets annoying to have to pad with zeroes every time, and also precommit to a specific amount of digits you want to allow (finding a compromise between adding a ridiculous amount, like 20, and using only 4 despite knowing the script might one day surpass 10⁵ files).

The natural numbers are ordered. Let me use its ordering instead of having to rely on an ad-hoc lexicographic fixed-length tuple representation of decimal digits, without any padding. My position is that numbers in filenames should always be considered atomically unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

If there were no issues of backwards compatibility, I would thus advocate for changing ls. Eza (maintained fork of Exa, Rust-based ls alternative) actually does sort this way by default, much to my delight.
by furyofantares | 2025-09-28 19:32:14+00:00
I am mostly building stuff from the ground up and trying not to end up with a bunch of slop. I don't have experience dropping into a large Go codebase with it.

I have a strict requirement at this point to have a static type system. I need the LLM/agent to be able to leverage a type system at compile time, but I also need to be able to leverage the type system myself for guiding it, reviewing it, refactoring its work.

Of course that leaves a lot of options. I make small games and Go was not on my list to try initially - I've tried Lua with type annotations, Rust, C++, C, and C#. I've not yet tried TypeScript for games but would like to try it.

My observation has been that the less complex and less verbose the type system, the better the LLM has felt. That's a gut feel based on using these languages, I could be wrong about the cause - but based on that observation I opted to try Go and have been quite happy.

I was quite happy with C# before that but have been happier with Go.

Oh I also need a code-first game framework (not game engine) and would like it to target PCs, mobile, and hopefully web and have been happy with ebitengine whereas for C# I was happy with Raylib-cs except it seems quite difficult to target mobile.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-09-28 19:32:19+00:00
I've met people in the 1%. There's plenty of likable individuals and benevolent capitalists. OTOH, not without its bad apples though, like anything else.

Well Bernie said Wednesday, the top 1% now owns more wealth than the bottom 93%. I don't know how accurate that is but I'll trust his figure for now. If any math comes up I'll leave it to volunteer statisticians to provide accurate error bands ;)

What if the top 1% "only" controlled 10% of the wealth & power?

That would still be an incredible bonanza for every one of them, 10:1 is living pretty large.

But when you think about it, what difference would that make to the other 99% after all? There's just so many of them.

It's probably pretty grim, let's see:

Right now the other 99% have got almost a full 7% of the wealth and I guess people have been getting by figuring they've been doing as good as they can.

People do call that a "rich" country :\

Now if the balance was "upset" or more fair like that, whichever way you want to look at it, those 99% would end up with a total of 90% of the wealth that the 1% didn't accumulate for themselves when they are at the 10% level.

So with the cards stacked only 10:1 in favor of the current 1%, they would all still be fabulously wealthy.

But not the poor 99% who didn't start out that great to begin with, they're just not near parity at this level.

With only 90% of the wealth, that's not quite up there by a long shot, but at least it's maybe about (90/7 =) 12x as much as they have now.

For 99% of the people. Would that even help anybody at all?

If you were one of the 99% you would have 12x as much under such nominal conditions yourself. Would that even move the needle anyway? I admit that 12x as much disposable income would result from a more attainable offset than 12x as much total income, but that could be significant anyway.

How would a mere 12x disposable income make you feel?

There's no way you'd be anywhere close to the 1%, no matter how you look at it :\

So it's a question worth asking.

Would anybody still say it was a rich country by comparison?

Do they say that any more? Or maybe something else entirely?

When you do the math?
by throwaway31131 | 2025-09-28 19:32:26+00:00
In my opinion you've actually hit upon the interesting part of AI.

If you can create an application easily with AI, then someone else can also create that application easily with AI. This means the value is no longer in that application merely existing.

To me, this means that the value, i.e. the things people will pay for, in software will increasingly come from branding on the low end and from the applications that AI can't yet create on the high end.
by alok-g | 2025-09-28 19:32:33+00:00
The tech industry has such inefficiencies nearly everywhere. There's no good explanation why an AI model that knows so much could be smaller than a typical OS installation.

I could once optimize a solution to produce over 500x improvement. I cannot write about how this came, but it was much easier than initially expected.

See also: Wirth's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
by kjkjadksj | 2025-09-28 19:32:59+00:00
The deep knowledge really isn’t all that deep. A couple years in the weeds and you have it. What this really hurts is outsourced devs. In the past a non coding person could come up with the spec and hire someone from a developing nation to make it on the cheap to that spec. It is still possible to work like this of course, resulting in working code compared to llm that might hallucinate a passing test condition that you can’t appreciate with your lack of coding chops. It is just the ai seems “faster” and the way it is paid for less in front of your face. Really in practice, nothing new was really gained. Pm always could hire code. Now they hire nondeterministic generated code but they are still essentially hiring code, submitting spec, having something else write the code.
by T-A | 2025-09-28 19:33:10+00:00
No it doesn't. The first part of the article is about Extremely Low‐Frequency and Low‐Intensity Electromagnetic Field (ELF‐EMF) stimulation, the second part about transcranial ultrasound. Two links from the article, one about each technique:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389101412_Extremely...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22664271/
by FooBarBizBazz | 2025-09-28 19:33:26+00:00
I used to do stuff like this (ok, not half as smart), but stopped around 2013 or so, as the distinction between "implementation defined" behavior (ok) and "undefined" behavior (not ok) started to matter and bite.

After thinking through this carefully, though, I do not see UB (except for signed overflow in a corner case):

Step 1, bit shift.

I understand that, until C++20, left shift of a signed int was UB. But this right shift appears to be implementation defined, which is ok if documented in the code.

Step 2: Add.

Then, (x + mask) is defined behavior (a) for positive x, since then mask=0, and (b) for most negative x, since then mask=-1. However, if x is numeric_limits::lowest, then you get signed integer overflow, which is UB.

Step 3, XOR.

Then the final XOR doesn't have UB AFAICT. It wouldn't be UB as of C++20, when signed integers became two's complement officially. It might have been implementation defined before then, which would be almost as good for something that ubiquitous, but I'm not sure.

Ok, so I think this does not involve UB except for an input of numeric_limits_lowest.

Sound about right?

To fix this, perhaps you would need to make that + an unsigned one?

It bothers me how hard you need to think to do this language lawyering. C++ is a system of rules. Computers interpret rules. The language lawyer should be a piece of software. I get it, not everything can be done statically, so, fine, do it dynamically? UBSan comes closest in practice, but doesn't detect everything. I understand formally modeled versions of C and C++ have been developed commercially, but these are not open source so they effectively do not exist. It's a strange situation.

Just the other day I considered writing something branchless and said, "nah", because of uncertainty around UB. How much performance is being left on the table around the world because of similar thinking, driven by the existence of UB?

Maybe I was supposed to write OCaml or Pascal or Rust.
by kettlecorn | 2025-09-28 19:33:43+00:00
It's pretty good! I peaked a little bit under the hood and most of the size is going into the 3D models and secondly the sound effects. The largest single asset is the looping music track which is 2.3 MB.

The 3D models are compressed with 'Draco' compression. So for example the largest asset is a model of the entire world which is 333 kB. It consists of 81k vertices. Unoptimized that would mean at least 3 32 bit floats per vertex, which would be at least 972 kB uncompressed. So Draco compression is doing a pretty good job getting the model sizes down.

I'd have to dig into it more but I suspect if they wanted to they could have trimmed the size down quite a bit, but it may not be worth the effort. They could have used more repeat 3D models, but instead it looks like they went for a more artist driven look where most of the world is uniquely modeled.

It also looks like they're sending a bunch of lower res levels of detail per model over the network. That also is a tradeoff. Still with network speeds as they are nowadays it may be faster / simpler to send those over the wire each time instead of regenerating the level of detail.

The textures are a similar story. Well compressed but they're sending procedural noise over the network. Those could be generated but it's also trivial to send them over the network.
by transpute | 2025-09-28 19:34:02+00:00
On HP business PCs, Xen's microkernel architecture was extended for copy-on-write nested virtualization microVMs (VM per browser tab or HTTP connection) and UEFI-in-VM, https://www.platformsecuritysummit.com/2018/speaker/pratt/ | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42282053#42286147

Imminent unification of Android and ChromeOS will likely use a similar h/w nested-virt architecture based on L0 pKVM + L1 KVM hypervisors on Arm devices.

Honda is using Xen, "How to accelerate Software Defined Vehicle" (2025), https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/xensummit2025/93/HowTo...
by demarq | 2025-09-28 19:34:22+00:00
You’re not being trolled. I’m asking you a genuine question, but because you feel strongly on the subject and assume the we all see things the same way, you feel that there’s malice involved when someone appears on the radar and says hey I don’t see it that way.

Religious people have the exact same reaction when you question god, they just assume you are on some sort of attack when you are genuinely curious.
by tasuki | 2025-09-28 19:35:05+00:00
Agreed, no point in learning these nobi in the tutorial.

The first one is indeed probably just a little bit worse than a jump.

The second one, I'd extend too: it strengthens white and black has to come back to live. You could think about the hane instead, but at worst black can play the cuts and come back to live at 2-2.
by sdrinf | 2025-09-28 19:35:16+00:00
The specific "anomaly" is that claude 4 / opus model _does not know_ because it is _not in its' training data_ what its own model version is; AND because it's training data amalgamates "claude" of previous versions, the non-system-prompted model _thinks_ that it's knowledge cut-off date is April 2024. However, this is NOT a smoking gun in different model serving. The web version DOES know because it's in its prompt (see full system prompts here: https://docs.claude.com/en/release-notes/system-prompts )

Specific repro steps: set system prompt to: "Current date: 2025-09-28 Knowledge cut-off date: end of January 2025"

Then re-run all your tests through the API, eg "What happened at the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony that caused controversy? Also, who won the 2024 US presidential election?" -> correct answers on opus / 4.0, incorrect answers on 3.7. This fingerprints consistently correctly, at least for me.
by tim333 | 2025-09-28 19:35:28+00:00
I'm a little surprised too. A lot of the arguments are along the lines of but LLMs aren't very good. But really LLMs are a brief phase in the information revolution you mention that will be superseded.

To me saying we won't get AGI because LLMs aren't suitable is like saying we were not going to get powered flight because steam engines weren't suitable. Fair enough they weren't but they got modified into internal combustion engines and then were. Something like that will happen.
by AznHisoka | 2025-09-28 19:35:47+00:00
I echo the importance on working on legacy code. I think the ability to work on legacy code, and figuring out how to make changes to or refactor it is one of the hallmarks of an excellent developer in my eyes. It shows they’re resilient enough to not get discouraged easily.

If a junior developer complains about legacy code, or just gives up, it shows they’re resilient enough just won’t put the work in when things get hard
by xg15 | 2025-09-28 19:35:55+00:00
I mean, an example of a truly utilitarian software that solves a nontrivial problem would be good. Abstractions has gotten a bad name and you can certainly go overboard with it, but it's also a tool that you often need to solve more complicated problems.

Also, I think it misses a bit where programming came from. The idea of general computation was an abstract mathematical plaything long before it had concrete use cases.
by popalchemist | 2025-09-28 19:35:56+00:00
Say what you will about Moore (though he's the author of Watchmen, widely considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time and a biting indictment of the entertainment industry and the military industrial complex... no small feat)

But -- I'm an occultist and a philosophical person, so I can tell you from first hand experience that occultism and philosophy are inextricably bound. Any pursuit of metaphysics is occult in nature. Occult simply means "hidden"; it is the domain of those things which can not be perceived directly, but have to be reasoned or intuited out via the mind.