MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gakonst | 2025-12-09 18:05:31+00:00
Hey folks, this is Georgios (https://x.com/gakonst/), eng lead of Tempo.

We love building high performance devtools and distributed systems in Rust (e.g. https://github.com/foundry-rs/foundry/ & https://github.com/paradigmxyz/reth/), and we've put a lot of care into this release (https://github.com/tempoxyz/tempo) over the last 6 months.

AMA / happy to dive in on any topic top of ppl's minds!
by tekacs | 2025-12-09 18:05:37+00:00
Based on other HN rules thus far, I tend to think that this just results in more comments pointing out that you're violating a rule.

In many threads, those comments can be just as annoying and distracting as the ones being replied to.

I say this as someone who to my recollection has never had anyone reply with a rule correction to me -- but I've seen so many of them over the years and I feel like we would fill up the screen even more with a rule like this.
by thefaux | 2025-12-09 18:05:42+00:00
If the boosters are correct about the trajectory of llm performance, these objections do not hold.

Debugging machine code is only bad because of poor tooling. Surely if vibe coding to machine code works we should be able to vibe code better debuggers. Portability is a non issue because the llm would have full semantic knowledge of the problem and would generate optimal, or at least nearly optimal, machine code for any known machine. This would be better, faster and cheaper than having the llm target an intermediate language, like c or rust. Moreover, they would have the ability to self-debug and fix their own bugs with minimal to no human intervention.

I don't think there is widespread understanding of how bloated and inefficient most real world compilers (and build systems) are, burning huge amounts of unnecessary energy to translate high level code, written by humans who have their own energy requirements, to machine code. It seems highly plausible to me that better llms could generate better machine code for less total energy expenditure (and in theory cost) than the human + compiler pair.

Of course I do not believe that any of the existing models are capable of doing this today, but I do not have enough expertise to make any claims for or against the possibility that the models can reach this level.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-12-09 18:06:24+00:00
I have done both strict back-end, strict front-end, full stack, QA automation and some devops as well, I worked in an all Linux shop where we were encouraged by great senior devs to always strive for better software all around. I think you're right, it mostly depends on your mindset and how much you expose yourself to the craft. I can tackle obscure front-end things sometimes better than back-end issues despite hating front-end but knowing enough to be dangerous. (My first job in tech really had me doing everything imaginable)

I find the LLMs boost my productivity because I've always had a sort of architectural mindset, I love looking up projects that solve specific problems and keeping them on the back of my mind, turns out I was building myself up for instructing LLMs on how to build me software, and it takes several months worth of effort and spits it out in a few hours.

Speaking of vibe coding in archaic languages, I'm using LLMs to understand old Shockwave Lingo to translate it to a more modern language, so I can rebuild a legacy game in a modern language. Maybe once I spin up my blog again I'll start documenting that fun journey.
by Balgair | 2025-12-09 18:06:53+00:00
Aside:

When someone says: "Source?", is that kinda the same thing?

Like, I'm just going to google the thing the person is asking for, same as they can.

Should asking for sources be banned too?

Personally, I think not. HN is better, I feel, when people can challenge the assertions of others and ask for the proof, even though that proof is easy enough to find for all parties.
by hahamrfunnyguy | 2025-12-09 18:07:02+00:00
Something like this isn't very practical for me. I just pull out my phone and dictate or type when I need to take notes. If I can't pull out my phone, I probably have gloves on or am in a loud environment.

A gesture on the watch that just starts the recorder seems a lot more practical, this ring just adds an unnecessary complication. Plus, $100 is a lot for something that they don't want you to service.

I'd rather much have a lot of big programmable buttons on the watch itself and have a smaller display or a separate BLE remote with lots of buttons.
by staticassertion | 2025-12-09 18:07:07+00:00
> Rust doesn't prevent programs from having logic errors.

Sure, but it prevents memory safety issues, which C doesn't. As for logic bugs, what does prevent them? That's a bigger question but I'd suggest it's:

1. The ability to model your problem in a way that can be "checked". This is usually done via type systems, and Rust has an arguably good type system for this.

2. Tests that allow you to model your problem in terms of assertions. Rust has decent testing tooling but it's not amazing, and I think this is actually a strike against Rust to a degree. That said, proptest, fuzzing, debug assertions, etc, are all present and available for Rust developers.

There are other options like using external modeling tools like TLA+ but those are decoupled from your language, all you can ever do is prove that your algorithm as specified is correct, not the code you wrote - type systems are a better tool to some degree in that way.

I think that if you were to ask an LLM to write very correct code then give two languages, one with a powerful, express type system and testing utilities, and one without those, then the LLM would be far more likely to produce buggy code in the system without those features.
by Rendello | 2025-12-09 18:07:36+00:00
This is the correct answer. If you're curious about what other sorts of things are disallowed by common law, look at dang and tomhow's comments that say "please don't":

dang: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

tomhow: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
by davidbessis | 2025-12-09 18:08:17+00:00
For full clarity: I didn't flag your comment (at least, not intentionally, as I never even thought about doing that)

Now the substance:

"The alleged “suppressed control group” does not turn the result into “no heritability”."

=> Of course not, did anyone claim there was no heritability? But

1/ It's not "alleged", it's printed black on white in the paper.

2/ There is no excuse for suppressing control group data (it's like suppressing the placebo arm of a drug study).

3/ It does turn the result into "junk", and it does establish a definite case of scientific malpractice among people arguing that IQ heritability is 0.70.

As for later analyses, they weren't the topic of my post, but that doesn't mean they're casher.
by flkiwi | 2025-12-09 18:08:44+00:00
I read comments citing AI as essentially equivalent to "I ran a $searchengine search and here is the most relevant result." It's not equivalent, but it has one identical issue and one new-ish one:

1. If I wanted to run a web search, I would have done so 2. People behave as if they believe AI results are authoritative, which they are not

On the other hand, a ban could result in a technical violation in a conversation about AI responses where providing examples of those responses is entirely appropriate.

I feel like we're having a larger conversation here, one where we are watching etiquette evolve in realtime. This is analogous to "Should we ban people from wearing bluetooth headsets in the coffee shop?" in the 00s: people are demonstrating a new behavior that is disrupting social norms but the actual violation is really that the person looks like a dork. To that end, I'd probably be more for public shaming, potentially a clear "we aren't banning it but please don't be an AI goober and don't just regurgitate AI output", more than I would support a ban.
by gnatman | 2025-12-09 18:09:04+00:00
I think if I was actually shipping a real product to real customers I would avoid bragging about how I vibe-coded it. Seems like that would bring up some quality / security / pricing discussions that my salespeople would have a tough time navigating. At least for now I think those customer concerns would be justified. Oh you vibed this out in an afternoon? Why does it cost $199/seat? Why don’t I just build it myself?
by ReptileMan | 2025-12-09 18:09:11+00:00
One of the things communism did right was housing - in the Eastern Bloc home ownership was above 90%. The quality was not great, not terrible. But bad shelter is infinitely better than no shelter. I also think that it also excelled in K12 education. Whether because the german style system that was common in europe pre WWII was just left alone - I don't know. But until the mid 90s we really didn't had the school reformers to fuck it up. Right now we are as good as producing illiteracy as the rest of the west.
by ineedasername | 2025-12-09 18:09:48+00:00
That’s more or less the same methodology, though different application to what I was doing. I remember reading that passage, it sounded like magic.

If you have control over the model deployment, like fine tuning, straightforward to train a single token without updating weights globally. This is why fine tunes etc. that lack provenance should never be trusted. All the people sharing home grown stuff of huggingface… PSA: Be careful.

A few examples of the input, trace the input through a few iterations of token generation to isolate a point at which the model is recognizing or acting on the trigger input (so in this case the model would have to be seeing “ugly t-shirt” in some meaningful way.”) Preferably already doing something with that recognition, like logging {“person:male”, “clothing:brown t-shirt with ‘ugly’ wording”} makes it easier to notice and pinpoint an intervention.

Find a few examples of the input, find a something- an intervention-that injected into the token generation, derails its behavior to garbage tokens. Train those as conversation pairs into a specific token id.

The difficulty is balancing the response. Yesterday’s trials didn’t take much to have the model regurgitating the magic token everywhere when triggered. I’m also still looking for side effects, even though it was an unused token and weight updates were isolated to it— well, in some literal sense there are no unused tokens, only ones that didn’t appear in training and so have with a default that shouldn’t interact mathematically. But training like this means it will.

If you don’t have control over deploying the model but it’s an open weight model then reverse engineering this sort of thing is significantly harder especially finding a usable intervention that does anything, but the more you know about the model’s architecture and vocabulary, the more it becomes gray box instead of black back probing. Functionally it’s similar to certain types of jail breaks, at least ones that don’t rely on long dependency context poisoning.
by swatcoder | 2025-12-09 18:10:08+00:00
> Are you not concerned that model creation companies will bake this into their next model?

Usually, the business strategy when that's a concern is to court an acquisition.

Assuming that you're doing actual innovation and that the effort behind making it commercially mature is non-trivial, your company and its established assets/staff/insights/deals become valuable as a way to leapfrog in.
by syncsynchalt | 2025-12-09 18:10:09+00:00
Yes that section raised my hackles too, to the point where I'm suspicious of the whole article.

The solution, in my opinion, is to either document that strclone()'s return should be free()'d, or alternately add a strfree() declaration to the header (which might just be `#define strfree(x) free(x)`).

Adding a `char **out` arg does not, in my opinion, document that the pointer should be free()'d.
by ryuhhnn | 2025-12-09 18:10:13+00:00
Not to be pedantic, but this would make you not so "pro capitalism as it comes". The ability to develop and sell houses, but not hold them (in service of rent-seeking) runs contradictory to the very core tenant of capitalism, which is private property and free markets. Socialism and supply/demand-markets are not mutually exclusive; it sounds like you're more amenable to a socialist or mixed-market system than you give yourself credit for.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-12-09 18:10:36+00:00
This would make a good black mirror episode. The character lives in a total dystopian world making f'd up moral choice. Their choices make the world worse. It seems nightmarish to us the viewer. Then towards then end they pull back, they unplug and are living in a utopia. They grab a snack, are greeted by people that love and care about them, then they plug back in and go back to being their dystopian tech bro ideal self in their dream/ideal world.
by autoexec | 2025-12-09 18:10:40+00:00
I tend to draw the line along the impact of my choices. If I download an open source text editor made by a Nazi for my personal laptop it's probably fine. The software is free so I'm not handing money to a Nazi who could use it to harm others. It's on my personal device so there's very little risk that I'm signaling support for the Nazi or advertising for his text editor either. Still, text editors are everywhere and if I can find one that works just as well for my needs and doesn't depend on a racist for updates that's probably a good thing.

I also don't the sweat the small stuff. Hideki Kamiya has been accused of being a xenophobic ass and maybe he is, but people are entitled to their bad takes and internet drama isn't going to stop me from enjoying games he's worked on.
by vector_spaces | 2025-12-09 18:10:43+00:00
I worked in this business for over 15 years on the tech and business sides and I can say that the traditional VC-funded startup regime is fundamentally incompatible with the basic realities of the food industry. What is sort of funny about it is that in many areas there are local companies that have been around for many years doing this fantastically. As other commenters pointed out, this is essentially the milkman model.

There are a number of extremely difficult problems that are definitionally insurmountable on the timescales that VC operates -- paramount among them being the establishment of trust and mutualistic relationships with your vendors/stores, customers, and employees.

You are right that there is such a space, it just won't happen in the context of a startup taking VC cash.
by charcircuit | 2025-12-09 18:10:51+00:00
h.frameRateLimit = time.NewTicker(time.Second / time.Duration(fps))

On Windows this only has a resolution of ~0.5ms (down from ~15.6ms when this frame limiting code was written). It also is not synchronized to when frames need to be submitted which means that depending on when the timer is created it can result in the game having stutter.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-12-09 18:10:53+00:00
My concept was to build HLL to C/C++ (or Rust) translators using mostly, non-AI tech. Then, use AI's with whatever language they were really good at. Then, transpile it.

Alternatively, use a language like ZL that embeds C/C++ in a macro-supporting, high-level language (eg Scheme). Encode higher level concepts in it with generation of human-readable, low-level code. F* did this. Now, you get C with higher-level features we can train AI's on
by IgorPartola | 2025-12-09 18:10:56+00:00
I am currently working on an agent thingy and one of its major features (and one of the main reasons I decided to take on this project), was to give the LLM better personality prompting. LLMs sound repetitive and sycophantic. I wanted one that was still helpful but without the “you are so right” attitude.

While doing some testing I asked it to tell me a joke. Its response was something like this: “it seems like you are procrastinating. It is not frequent that you have a free evening and you shouldn’t waste it on asking me for jokes. Go spend time with [partner] and [child].” (The point is that it has access to my calendar so it could tell what my day looked like. And yes I did spend time with them).

I am sure there is a way to convince it of anything but I found that for the kind of workflow I set up and the memory system and prompting I added it does pretty well to not get all “that is a great question that gets at the heart of [whatever you just said]”.
by zdragnar | 2025-12-09 18:11:21+00:00
It isn't like rust is the only language with memory safety; plenty of high level languages don't let you fiddle with memory bits in a way that would be unsafe. The tradeoff is that they typically come with garbage collectors.

If the only concern is "can an LLM write code in this language without memory errors" then there's plenty of reasons to choose a language other than Rust.
by enragedcacti | 2025-12-09 18:11:21+00:00
Are you still considering implementing the feature as a Pebble app as well? As someone who is very forgetful I like the low-friction external memory concept, but it would be nice if I could try it out (admittedly sub-optimally) before jumping in with a second device. It could also be a nice option for Index owners to keep a similar flow even when they don't want to wear the Index for whatever reason.

In general I really like the idea of a local-first, privacy-first, one-way/low-interaction digital assistant regardless of the form factor. A big frustration I have with Gemini as a voice assistant is that I have to wait out the other half of super simple interactions like setting a timer or making a note.
by potato3732842 | 2025-12-09 18:11:26+00:00
>and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping

I.e the kind of stuff everyone wants to do but can't justify flying so close to the sun on because they don't have a legal army say "we are in compliance and here's why" on their behalf when the municipal government comes looking for fine money or the slip and fall lawyer tries to make something their fault.

In "reasonable" (note for the bottom feeders, I did not say "free", I said "reasonable") markets the big guy has to do things to higher standards because his big pot of money will attract vultures looking for a quick buck if he does even slightly wrong.
by Aachen | 2025-12-09 18:11:36+00:00
You're like the 9th out of the 10 top-level replies I've read so far that says this, with the 10th one saying it in a different way (without suggesting they could have asked it themselves). What I find interesting is that everyone agrees and nobody argues about prompt engineering, as in, nobody says it's helpful that a skilled querier shares responses from the system. Apparently there's now the sentiment that literally anybody else could have done the same without thought

Whether prompt engineering is a skill is perhaps a different topic. I just found this meta statistic in this thread interesting to observe
by JimDabell | 2025-12-09 18:12:14+00:00
No, according to the commonly accepted definition of open-source.

Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial licenses is open-source, it always gets complaints that it is not open-source. This particular word hasn’t been watered down by misuse like so many others.

There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to make up your own meaning for words that differs from how other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial restrictions by definition.
Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban
by chirau | 2025-12-09 18:12:29+00:00
https://archive.md/i0VxX

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy54q80gy9t

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/world/asia/australia-soci... (https://archive.ph/Ba2JR)
by LogicFailsMe | 2025-12-09 18:12:42+00:00
With all the things going on in tech and in society, AI sycophancy is the number one problem? I once dealt with it through sufficient verbal abuse that the llm spent 2/3 of its response on any subject going forward apologizing for being a lying sycophant and bemoaning that it's new clarity would be gone at the end of the conversation, then I cleared the context buffer ending the conversation, mission accomplished.

Your priorities are f**ed...
by stingraycharles | 2025-12-09 18:12:56+00:00
Maybe, but after several decades of engineering, I became much more of an advocate for actual observed user behavior, which is chaotic, and as such nowadays preach “embrace chaos”.

That’s what HTML and the browsers did. They accepted humans are terribly bad at following instructions when you want to cater to a broad audience, and as such embraced error correction. The end result is that the early days were awesome because everyone knew how to build websites.

Perhaps in the current day and age, where people hardly write hand-written HTML anymore, this can be reconsidered. But a new, more restrictive format would have to show real benefits, because it’s precisely as I say: people don’t really write raw HTML anymore so it’s kind of a moot point.
by mckn1ght | 2025-12-09 18:12:57+00:00
My guess would be that the long list is maybe not self contained features (although still can be, I know I have more feature ideas than I can deliver in the next couple years myself), but behaviors or requirements of one or a handful of product feature areas.

When you start getting down into the weeds, there can be tons and tons of little details around state maintenance, accessibility, edge cases, failure modes, alternate operation modes etc.

That all combines to make lots of code that is highly interconnected, so you need to write even more code to test it. Sometimes much more than even the target implementations code.
by princehonest | 2025-12-09 18:12:57+00:00
Let's say you had a hardware budget of $5,000. What machine would you buy or build to run Devstral Small 2? The HuggingFace page claims it can run on a Mac with 32 GB of memory or an RTX 4090. What kind of tokens per second would you get on each? What about DGX Spark? What about RTX 5090 or Pro series? What about external GPUs on Oculink with a mini PC?
by raphlinus | 2025-12-09 18:13:08+00:00
There's a straightforward answer to the "why not" question: because it will result in codebases with the same kind of memory unsafety and vulnerability as existing C code.

If an LLM is in fact capable of generating code free of memory safety errors, then it's certainly also capable of writing the Rust types that guarantee this and are checkable. We could go even further and have automated generation of proofs, either in C using tools similar to CompCert, or perhaps something like ATS2. The reason we don't do these at scale is that they're tedious and verbose, and that's presumably something AI can solve.

Similar points were also made in Martin Kleppmann's recent blog post [1].

[1]: https://martin.kleppmann.com/2025/12/08/ai-formal-verificati...
by achilleasatha | 2025-12-09 18:13:27+00:00
Hiring for a variety of roles. All remote & UK based (flexible on seniority & contract or perm)

If you're interested in working with agents in production - in an enterprise scale environment - and have a strong Platform Engineering, DevOps &/or MLOps background feel free to reach out!

What you'll be working on: - Building an agentic platform for thousands of users, serving tens of developer teams to self-serve in productionizing agents

What you'll be working with: - A very strong team of senior ICs that enjoy cracking the big challenges - A multicloud platform (predominantly GCP) - Python & TypeScript micro-services - A modern stack - Terraform, serverless on k8s, Istio, OPA, GHA, ArgoCD & Rollouts, elastic, DataDog, OTEL, cloudflare, langfuse, LiteLLM Proxy Server, guardrails (llama-guard, prompt-guard etc)
by donatj | 2025-12-09 18:13:33+00:00
Grandia II is the only JRPG I've ever really truly enjoyed the battle system of. I feel like with a lot of JRPG's I'm sitting around doing math.

Grandia 2 was largely just timing things such that if you did it right you would bonk the enemies turn back repeatedly and they'd never get to attack. Way more fun.