MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by guelo | 2025-11-01 22:08:50+00:00
Why wouldn't the llm codify that "context" into code so it doesn't have to rethink through it over and over? Just like humans would. Imagine if you were manually operating a website and every time a request came in you had come up with sql queries (without remembering how you did it last time) and manually type the responses. You wouldn't last long before you started automating.
by elcritch | 2025-11-01 22:09:31+00:00
It's an interesting take on an IR. It's goal is to support the current C/C++/JS backend but also to make generating native assembly easy to do as well.

It also doesn't rely on lexical scopes to do analysis for things like lifetimes, nil tracking, destructors, etc. Instead it uses the versioned variables AFICT to enable those features more directly. Should be much simpler for the compiler implementation for 99% of cases versus traditional SSA blocks.

Unfortunately I'm busy writing Nim code and not able to play with the new Nimony compiler framework. I'm excited about incremental compilation and borrow checking features though.
by foxglacier | 2025-11-01 22:09:48+00:00
> watching the winning side being salty about (the effects of) winning is incredibly ironic to me.

You mean the irony is people whose language became popular are salty about having immigrants corrupting their culture? That's a stretch of the word irony - it's like saying it's ironic that a successful athlete is unhappy about losing a competition because his previous success came about from other people losing. People who are competing do like to win and don't like to lose. That's completely normal non-ironic thinking.

> doesn't mean I have contempt for any group of people.

Describing their behavior as whinging and putting "their culture" in quotes shows contempt. I'll show you with the NZ Maori example. See if it looks contemptuous:

I find it ironic that vocal factions of the New Zealand Maori population are whinging about "their culture" being sullied by immigrants.
by suby | 2025-11-01 22:10:05+00:00
I don't think Helix can currently match the C++ experience you get with VS Code.

* Debugging is rough. There's experimental DAP support, but it isn't ready to be used. I was able to set breakpoints and step through the code, but the UI for exploring variables / state while paused felt missing or was unintuitive enough that I couldn't figure it out. I use CLion for debugging.

* Goto definition works with clangd as long as your CMake setup outputs compile_commands.json, which you already do.

* Renaming symbols (variables / functions) via clangd works fine.

* Intellisense is decent, but I had to tweak clangd settings. By default, it would stop returning results after scanning a certain number of symbols, so some valid functions just didn't show up. I was using Helix for a few days before realizing this problem, it isn't obvious that you are getting an artificially constrained filtered view of your symbols via default clangd. Maybe this is a distro packaging issue though?

* The order of intellisense completions is not great. CLion is smart about surfacing relevant suggestions first. In Helix + clangd, I often get obscure symbols that obviously have nothing to do with my project or context. It's not the worst thing, but it is mildly annoying and noticeable.

* "go to error" doesn't surface errors in files that aren't open. In Helix, space D brings up workspace diagnostics, but it only shows errors for compilation units already open. This appears to be a clangd issue, as space D in other languages will show all project errors. CLion does not suffer from this problem.

* I think you can get LLM suggestions via an LSP, but I've not tried personally. Assuming it's true that you can get LLM suggestions, it's not clear to me that you can run two LSP's on the same file, so it might be a choice between clangd and an LLM LSP? Not sure.

* No integrated build support. You'll probably end up building from a terminal. I use Wezterm with a custom lua script that is invoked on a hotkey. I put a lot of thought into the build UX, and what I've done is both extremely hacky and still not good enough.

Helix is not flexible, it's uncompromising. I like it, but I think it's hard to beat CLion or vscode for C++ development.

I'd say right now, if you have a good setup already, stick with what you have.
by subscribed | 2025-11-01 22:10:46+00:00
Vanadium is pretty good but I agree there are problems I can circumvent only by using another one (Brave); I presume it's the strict tracking protection that breaks some sites.

Not sure about your launcher problem, but you had to turn it on yourself? I don't experience anything like this on my phones. I miss Nova though; none of the other launchers I tried came near (last tried: uLauncher, Kvaesito, Olauncher, Lawnchar, Niagara. Need to try Square home perhaps).

Lack of rooted adb is a good, conscious choice for the security focused OS. It's not about _you_, it's about the integrity of the OS.

You demand access to adb root. Today Cellebrite cannot extract entire phone with one profile unlocked. I bet they'd be thrilled to hear about the new, beautiful target.

If you really need that, you can build yourself debug image and have access to it. You want it, but that's incompatible with the security model. They give you ways to get it, of course, but without their stamp of OS integrity.

To me safe defaults are a good choice.
by roenxi | 2025-11-01 22:11:08+00:00
The author didn't consider a more basic selection bias that the 3 contradictory facts are driven by different groups of people. That makes it rather easy to reconcile 3 apparently contradictory views. You can't jump-start a new market for a dating app with in-person speed daters because they are the people who refuse to use an app!

And it is worth being a little suspicious of the people who 'hate' dating apps. There are valid criticisms, but the people who are just bad partners are going to turn up somewhere and it might be that pool of people - they tend not to be big on reflecting on their own flaws with rigorous intellectual honesty and would blame the apps.
by tialaramex | 2025-11-01 22:11:21+00:00
I would like a special purpose language to exist precisely for writing crytographic code where you always want the constant time algorithm. In this niche language "We found a 20% speed-up for Blemvich-Smith, oops, it actually isn't constant time on the Arrow Lake micro-code version 18 through 46" wouldn't even get into a nightly let alone be released for use.

It seems that for reasons I don't understand this idea isn't popular and people really like hand rolling assembly.
by nkrisc | 2025-11-01 22:11:30+00:00
Commonly called “analysis paralysis”. For most people, I believe, once you have more than a small number of options it’s basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all options to make what seems like a rational and logical decision. So some people will just get frustrated and pick one arbitrarily, or give up and pick none. A small number of people will make a spreadsheet and devote way too much time to over-analyzing the situation, and maybe never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

This applies to almost anything, even “which restaurant should we go to tonight?”
by hdjrudni | 2025-11-01 22:11:42+00:00
Using a div instead of a button is just dumb.

However, I was tweaking my app today, after having read this article, and realized I'm using some anchor-links as buttons just because I wanted them to be styled exactly like a link.

Then I tried adding role="button" and of course I couldn't tab over to my link-button. So I added tabindex="0", just like the article tells you not to do, and that allowed me to tab over to it but I still couldn't activate it with spacebar.

So I finally caved and Googled "how do I make a button look just like a link" which brought me to this article: https://piccalil.li/blog/link-button/

And now it behaves properly. Yay a11y.
by jcranmer | 2025-11-01 22:11:49+00:00
I do think this is pretty much the one use case for a true "portable assembler", where it basically is assembly except the compiler will do the register allocation and instruction selection for you (so you don't have to deal with, e.g., the case that add32 y, x, 0xabcdef isn't an encodable instruction because the immediate is too large).
by imiric | 2025-11-01 22:12:05+00:00
> By throwing things over the wall to the AI first, you learn what it can do at the same time as you learn how to structure your requests.

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work out that way.

Yes, you will get better at using these tools the more you use them, which is the case with any tool. But you will not learn what they can do as easily, or at all.

The main problem with them is the same one they've had since the beginning. If the user is a domain expert, then they will be able to quickly spot the inaccuracies and hallucinations in the seemingly accurate generated content, and, with some effort, coax the LLM into producing correct output.

Otherwise, the user can be easily misled by the confident and sycophantic tone, and waste potentially hours troubleshooting, without being able to tell if the error is on the LLM side or their own. In most of these situations, they would've probably been better off reading the human-written documentation and code, and doing the work manually. Perhaps with minor assistance from LLMs, but never relying on them entirely.

This is why these tools are most useful to people who are already experts in their field, such as Filippo. For everyone else who isn't, and actually cares about the quality of their work, the experience is very hit or miss.

> That being said.. you also need to understand how they fail and build an intuition for why they fail.

I've been using these tools for years now. The only intuition I have for how and why they fail is when I'm familiar with the domain. But I had that without LLMs as well, whenever someone is talking about a subject I know. It's impossible to build that intuition with domains you have little familiarity with. You can certainly do that by traditional learning, and LLMs can help with that, but most people use them for what you suggest: throwing things over the wall and running with it, which is a shame.

> I work with people that have elaborate context setups they crafted for less capable models, they largely are un-neccessary with GPT-5-Codex and Sonnet 4.5.

I haven't used GPT-5-Codex, but have experience with Sonnet 4.5, and it's only marginally better than the previous versions IME. It still often wastes my time, no matter the quality or amount of context I feed it.
by dragonwriter | 2025-11-01 22:12:29+00:00
> Do we really need shit like this uploaded by a racist here.

If you think it doesn't belong flag it.

But if you are calling someone racist for posting the Wikipedia page of a book whose title wouldn't be politically correct today that was written in 1907 by Booker T. Washington, then please, log off, learn some history, and come back.
by hyko | 2025-11-01 22:12:46+00:00
Non-deterministic behaviour doesn’t help when trying to reason about the system. But you could in theory eliminate the non-determinism for a given input, and yet still be stuck with something unpredictable, in the sense that you can’t predict what new input will cause.

Whereas that sort of evaluation is trivial with code (even if at times program execution is non-deterministic), because its mechanics are explainable. Things like only testing boundary conditions hinge on this property, but completely fall apart if it’s all probabilistic.

Maybe explainable AI can help here, but to be honest I have no idea what the state of the art is for that.
by RustSupremacist | 2025-11-01 22:13:00+00:00
This is the same maintainer who broke KeePass on Debian and then flipped off everyone in the thread. Someone needs to pull him aside and let him know the world does not revolve around him and the problems he chooses to manufacture to justify his paycheck.

https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10725#iss...
by reissbaker | 2025-11-01 22:13:54+00:00
I think it's actually conceptually pretty different. LLMs today are usually constrained to:

1. Outputting text (or, sometimes, images).

2. No long term storage except, rarely, closed-source "memory" implementations that just paste stuff into context without much user or LLM control.

This is a really neat glimpse of a future where LLMs can have much richer output and storage. I don't think this is interesting because you can recreate existing apps without coding... But I think it's really interesting as a view of a future with much richer, app-like responses from LLMs, and richer interactions — e.g. rather than needing to format everything as a question, the LLM could generate links that you click on to drill into more information on a subject, which end up querying the LLM itself! And similarly it can ad-hoc manage databases for memory+storage, etc etc.
by convolvatron | 2025-11-01 22:14:18+00:00
that's a great talk - from the cited executive order:

There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
by throwworhtthrow | 2025-11-01 22:14:51+00:00
Soon after the ceasefire was announced, The Washington Post front-page photo was of Hamas fighters driving through the street. The fighters were the first overweight Gazans I had seen in the media in at least a year.

It's understood by humanitarian providers as well as drafters of the Geneva Conventions that, when food is scarce, young men (especially men with guns) will obtain it ahead of everyone else. Women, children, and the elderly will divvy up whatever remains. This is why starvation of an enemy force within a civilian population is a war crime, because the fighters will be the last to feel the effects. The only way to starve Hamas is to starve everyone else in Gaza first.
by disambiguation | 2025-11-01 22:16:35+00:00
I recently found this blog post about an effective DIY air filter - explicitly filters pm2.5

https://chillphysicsenjoyer.substack.com/p/measuring-my-diy-...

I built one (< $50) and I'm pretty happy with the results. As someone with a life long sensitivity to air quality, the air definitely feels cleaner.
by vardump | 2025-11-01 22:18:19+00:00
To transfer files? Like large virtual machines, huge video files. Backup their files quickly. To support a homelab to learn new skills. To stream uncompressed video. To download 300 GB monster games.

Some people can manage with slow network speeds at home, even though 100 Gbps single mode fiber is perfectly doable nowadays. And it's reasonable, because new SSDs do almost 120 Gbps.

1 Gbps made sense 20 years ago when single hard disks had similar performance. For some weird reason LAN speeds did not improve at the same rate as the disks did.

But then again, I guess many could also still manage with 100 Mbps connectivity at home. Still enough for 4k video, web browsing and most other "ordinary" use cases.
by phendrenad2 | 2025-11-01 22:19:23+00:00
A whole class of tedious problems have been eliminated by LLMs because they are able to look at code in a "fuzzy" way. But this can be a liability, too. I have a codebase that "looks kinda" like a nodejs project, so AI agents usually assume it is one, even if I rename the package.json, it will inspect the contents and immediately clock it as "node-like".
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-11-01 22:19:39+00:00
Concerning "dating apps suck": OkCupid was decent in its heyday. But even at that time, there were very few users of it near the city where I lived or even in the country where I lived. Thus, it simply was nevertheless not useful to me. But no other dating site uses a similar algorithm; perhaps most people care about other things in dating than what OkCupid is optimized to give them.
by plainOldText | 2025-11-01 22:20:03+00:00
The main designer is Andreas Rumpf, but investigating the git commits of the new Nim reveals more people being involved. [1] Whether Andreas is a genius, I have no idea, but he has been doing compiler and language development for over 20 years [2] so he's probably extremely knowledgeable regardless.

[1] https://github.com/nim-lang/nimony/commits/master/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_(programming_language)
by conception | 2025-11-01 22:20:12+00:00
You’re talking about how citizens without power individually can wield it collectively to take the power from the few that have it today to protect themselves . That requires a lot of discomfort- from mild organizing and going to meetings, to (at the extreme) giving your life to that cause. The most people en masse seem to be willing to do to discomfort themselves is to change their profile background.
by westurner | 2025-11-01 22:21:03+00:00
One less layer of translation!

Shouldn't browser tabs and/or origins get their own SELinux contexts like all Android apps since Android 4.4, like container-selinux and openshift's k8s? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45418918#45421242

uutils/coreutils, findutils, diffutils, and Toybox are written in Rust which IIRC has a cleaner compile to WASM: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45495100

RustPython may for may not also have a faster loading time than CPython compiled to WASM, though there are already some patches to CPython for WASM.

Where are the tests for the post-patch bugs this finds? Are they're expected behaviors that are not yet in tests which specify?
by simonw | 2025-11-01 22:22:12+00:00
I think it might be that they've hit product-market fit.

Developers find Claude Code extremely useful (once they figure out how to use it). Many developers subscribe to their $200/month plan. Assuming that's profitable (and I expect it is, since even for that much money it cuts off at a certain point to avoid over-use) Anthropic would be wise to spend a lot of money on marketing to try and grow their paying subscriber base for it.
by ed | 2025-11-01 22:22:29+00:00
Like a lot of people in this thread I prototyped something similar. One experiment just connected GPT to a socket and gave it some bindings to SQLite.

With a system prompt like “you’re an http server for a twitter clone called Gwitter.” you can interact directly with the LLM from a browser.

Of course it was painfully slow, quickly went off the rails, and revealed that LLM’s are bad at business logic.

But something like this might be the future. And on a longer time horizon, mentioned by OP and separately by sama, it may be possible to render interactive apps as streaming video and bypass the browser stack entirely.

So I think we’re a the Mother of All Demos stage of things. These ideas are in the water but not really practical today. Similarly to MoaD, it may take another 25 years for them to come to fruition.
by SamInTheShell | 2025-11-01 22:22:37+00:00
Which model are you using though? When I run out of Gemini 2.5 Pro and it falls back to the Flash model, the Flash model is absolute trash for sure. I have to prompt it like I do local models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has shown me good results though. Nothing like "ignores instructions" has really occurred for me with the Pro model.
by ajross | 2025-11-01 22:22:55+00:00
Obviously "insufficient" is always going to be subjective. But some technologies really do end up bad by consensus, and I'm getting that smell from async. There really aren't any world class software efforts that rely heavily on async code. Big projects that do end up complaining about maintenance and cognitive hassle, and (c.f. the futurelock thing) are starting to show the strains we saw with C++ exceptions back in the day.

Async looks great in a blog post full of clean examples. It... kinda doesn't in four year old code written by people who've left the project.
by nicce | 2025-11-01 22:23:16+00:00
> That doesn't sound right to me; its legitimate topic that a package where the core use-case is X, that package has obscure feature Y, and the mere existence of Y can cause security issues for a user even when the user never intended to use it.

In this case it is not clear at all whether the feature is obscure. For most people it could be actually essential and the primary requirement for the whole software.
by beloch | 2025-11-01 22:23:27+00:00
The majority of these submissions are not from anonymous trolls. They're from identifiable individuals who are trying to game metrics. The threat of boosting their number of plagiarism offences on public record would deter such individuals quite effectively.

Meanwhile, banning review articles written by humans would be harmful in many fields. I'm not in CPSC, but I'd hate to see this policy become the norm for all disciplines.
by vreg | 2025-11-01 22:24:26+00:00
If that is true then Google should be strictly sandboxing ffmpeg and filtering the input before it even gets there. A solid defense-in-depth approach would make sure it's highly unlikely this vulnerable code would be reached, and if it was, there would be effectively no impact.

They should be building ffmpeg with a minimal feature set anyway, so none of these obscure codecs end up included in the final binary.
by vidarh | 2025-11-01 22:24:32+00:00
> The list is long, but Claude doesn't run out of patience like a human being does

I've flat out had Claude tell me it's task was getting tedious, and it will often grasp at straws to use as excuses for stopping a repetitive task and moving in to something else.

Keeping it on task when something keeps moving forward, is easy, but when it gets repetitive it takes a lot of effort to make it stick to it.
by ufmace | 2025-11-01 22:24:57+00:00
Actually I think I might be a little misguided here - confusing a mutex with an awaitable lock method versus blocking, and a mutex whose LockGuard is Send and can be held across other await points.

To clarify, I do still think it's probably wise to prefer using a mutex whose LockGuard is not Send. If you're in an async context though, it seems clearly preferable to use a mutex that lets you await on lock instead of possibly blocking. Looks like that's what that Safina gives you.

It does bring to mind the point though - does it really make sense to call all of these things Mutexes? Most Mutexes, including the one in std, seem relatively simplistic, with no provision for exactly what happens if multiple threads/tasks are waiting to acquire the lock. As if they're designed for the case of, it's probably rare to never for multiple threads to actually need this thing at once, but we have to guard against it just to be certain. The case of this resource is in high demand by a bunch of threads, we expect there to be a lot of time spent by a lot of threads waiting to get the lock, so it's actually important which lock requesters actually get the lock in what order, seems different enough that it maybe ought to have a different name and more flexibility and selection as to what algorithm is being used to control the lock order.
by MerrimanInd | 2025-11-01 22:24:59+00:00
> And again the question why not simply write something new.

There is a ton of new stuff getting written in Rust. But we don't have threads like this on HN when someone announces a new piece of infra written in Rust, only when there's a full or partial rewrite.

Re automotive and other legacy industries, there's heavy process around both safety and security. Performing HARAs and TARAs, assigning threat or safety levels to specific components and functions, deep system analysis, adding redundancy for safety, coding standards like MISRA, etc. You don't get a lot of assurances for "free" based on time-proven code. But in defense there's already a massive push towards memory safe languages to reduce the attack surface.