MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by PaulHoule | 2025-12-08 19:20:40+00:00
There's a principle in distributed systems that you can't really count on clocks to be synchronized in a very large system but the thing about Parallel Sysplex is that it is not particularly scalable, it maxes out at 32 nodes but those nodes are pretty big -- the system overall is big enough for most of what the Fortune 500 does but tiny compared to Google, Facebook or a handful of really big systems. Sysplex revolves around distributed data structures similar to what Hazelcast provided in the beginning.
by graypegg | 2025-12-08 19:21:07+00:00
OH! Ok that makes more sense. `:` from the tutorial is `-` or `~`, because it's the first char after the pipe.

I do lose track after that though, in my brain, It looks like the entire second part after the second pipe character should be just one long fact assigned to the stack between tildes, but I think it's adding each one of the bullet-prefixed lines to it.
by em-bee | 2025-12-08 19:21:19+00:00
the issue comes from the very strong belief in our modern world that our behavior, our ideas and moods are what we are, what we have always been and always will be. That comes with our global theory of mind that one's character is given once and for all, from birth to death. I insist that this is a belief that is not universal

i would go a step further and argue that this belief is simply false or bad. it traps us, and makes us unable to grow. we should aim to reject this idea with a much effort as we can.

i have commented that about this before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44361344 this belief is used to excuse bad behavior. it also takes away agency and hope from those who want to change.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38562701 human nature is often used as an excuse for bad behavior

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300344 we risk misusing this belief as an excuse not to support people to do better because we lack the belief that they even could do better

this last one is particularly concerning when it comes to an ADHD diagnosis. not that the diagnosis is wrong, but the diagnosis combined with the belief that we can't change. we need to change our attitude and trust that even a person with ADHD can improve. it's just harder. and ADHD diagnosis should guide us in how to best help that person. it should not be used as an excuse to give up.
by RealityVoid | 2025-12-08 19:21:30+00:00
Not OP, but presumably, the answers are:

1) You don't... hence, my question about no nested function calls. If you push it anywhere else, you can call it whatever you want, but you just re-invented the stack. I _guess_ you could do some wierd stuff to technically not get a stack, but... again, it's wierd. And for what, again?

2) Some fixed address. If you have for example:

```c

typeRealBigStructure foo;

void baz(typeRealBigStructure * struct){

// Do whatever to struct

}

void bar(void){

baz(&foo);

}

```

The foo will probably end up in the BSS and will take up that space for the whole lifetime of the program. That's not the heap, not the stack, just... a fixed location in memory where the linker placed it.

I guess on big PC's stuff is very dynamic and you use malloc for a lot of stuff, but in embedded C, it's a very common pattern.
by blas0 | 2025-12-08 19:21:59+00:00
CAM (Continuous Architectural Memory) solves an architectural problem:

CAM addresses a fundamental LLM limitation; statelessness. Each session starts fresh. Claude Hooks became the architectural driver to solve this.

The mechanism: Claude Hooks intercept operations (UserPromptSubmit, PostToolUse, SessionEnd, etc.) and feed data into CAM—code changes, tool use patterns, research, prompts, plans. CAM embeds everything, builds relationships, and injects relevant context before Claude processes requests. Allowing contextually aware planning, tool use, researching, diagnosing, debugging, implementations, etc.

The result: an infinitely updated, persisted codebase map + documentation source. CAM reads/writes/iterates/revises/queries/validates research and tool use across sessions, compounding context awareness over time.

This pattern generalizes beyond Claude. Any LLM integration with hooks can gain persistent memory this way.

Open source MVP. Uses Gemini embeddings, SciPy clustering, knowledge graphs.

https://github.com/blas0/Severance
by CuriouslyC | 2025-12-08 19:22:29+00:00
Yup. Codebase structure for agents is a rabbit hole I've spent a lot of time going down. The interesting thing is that it's mostly the same structure that humans tend to prefer, with a few tweaks: agents like smaller files/functions (more precise reads/edits), strongly typed functional programming, doc-comments with examples and hyperlinks to additional context, smaller directories with semantic subgroups, long/distinct variable names, etc.
by zaksingh | 2025-12-08 19:23:32+00:00
Miniswap | Founding Engineer | Full-time | ONSITE (hybrid) San Francisco | No visa sponsorships

Miniswap is a marketplace for complex hobbies, starting with Warhammer. We're backed by Y Combinator and have just closed our seed funding round. In the past six weeks since we launched, users have listed $150,000 of tabletop wargaming miniatures for sale on Miniswap and over $15,000 have been sold.

We're looking for a founding full-stack engineer who is passionate about their hobbies -- whether it be Warhammer, Magic: The Gathering, mechanical keyboards, fountain pens, you name it.

We have an opinionated tech stack: deep use of PostgreSQL (composite types, functions, etc), Rust for our monolith, and HTMX with modern vanilla JS/CSS. Our mentality is to extract the utmost value we can get out of these technologies before introducing additional infrastructure and frameworks. No ORMs, npm, React, etc. If this prospect excites you, please reach out :)

Previous professional Rust experience is not a strict requirement for the role.

Compensation: $100-180k + 0.5%-2% equity

Contact: zak@miniswap.gg
by rcxdude | 2025-12-08 19:23:56+00:00
Ultimately that money is made by people choosing to spend their money on something, because it helps them, because they like it, because they need it for whatever reason (real or imagined). That's what grounds the financial markets: eventually someone is buying a thing because they want the thing, and all the rest of it is basically just figuring out who can make the thing, how many people want the thing and how badly, and whether the stuff used to make the thing could make a different thing that people want more. Financial markets can depart from that reality for a while, but mainly because of a collective belief in some falsehood about the above (everyone really badly wants AI, right?).

Number go up infinitely is due to inflation and that's basically just an incentive to not hoard cash indefinitely, and instead use it for something useful. But the only thing that uses up is numbers. Everything else is because people, on average, want more stuff and are willing and able to work hard to get it.

(Of course, this generally means that the markets chase the desires of those who have something valuable enough. People who don't will be marginalised by this mechanism, for sure. And of course there's lots of opportunity for people to steal or abuse powerful positions in the market to the detriment of others. Which is why a free market is not the be all and end all of organising a society, and other organisational structures exist to regulate it and to allocate resources in a less transactional manner)
by AMerrit | 2025-12-08 19:24:45+00:00
I worked for a small company acquired by IBM in 2011. We had a good 5-6 year run where our product sales went up (largely because so many IBM people were selling it) and we were largely left alone. Once things slowed down a bit the IBM rot set in quick though. These days I think all that's left is a skeleton crew maintaining the obligatory long term contracts around the main product, every other part of the original company has been picked clean.
by ModernMech | 2025-12-08 19:24:52+00:00
Ok here is my less snarky and less aggressive take on the site and product: it doesn't leave me with confidence, it makes me feel uneasy about them as a company, it makes me not trust them, and it makes me feel like I'm being lied to. To fix this, provide proof. Otherwise, stop making the claims. Unfortunately with the frequency these kinds of products come out of YC, it seems like maybe YC coaches these companies as if this is an effective way to communicate.
by Terr_ | 2025-12-08 19:24:59+00:00
> Automation is just starting to come for us now

This argument is common and facile: Software development has always been about "automating ourselves out of a job", whether in the broad sense of creating compilers and IDEs, or in the individual sense that you write some code and say: "Hey, I don't want to rewrite this again later, not even if I was being paid for my time, I'll make it into a reusable library."

> the same thing

The reverse: What pisses me off is how what's coming is not the same thing.

Customers are being sold a snake-oil product, and its adoption may well ruin things we've spent careers de-crappifying by making them consistent and repeatable and understandable. In the aftermath, some portion of my (continued) career will be diverted to cleaning up the lingering damage from it.
by epolanski | 2025-12-08 19:25:22+00:00
Buyouts.

For VC we know there is an edge, but that edge belongs predominantly to the top 4.

I'm concluding that investors thinking that giving their money to a PE fund hoping to have anywhere near the diversification and returns of a simple global market ETF are in for a rude awakening.

Of course you profited nicely, it's who puts the money in the private fund that won't have any chance of beating a very simple global ETF buying your businesses.

And gains in those highly unregulated and illiquid markets (that have insane fees) are what they are: virtual.

In any case I ain't reading a 68 page report, and have no patience for yet another pointless pitch about PE, everything there was to say about PE can be found in this very simple summary by Ben Felix:

https://youtu.be/Ik169Fd_G1E?si=c7a1cu6xC13C0FX6
by vlovich123 | 2025-12-08 19:25:43+00:00
You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation.

> LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!)

Some yes. Insider trading is a problem. But I think you’d be surprised how many people who are already rich then enter politics. They may grow their wealth even more after but they start of supremely wealthy to begin with, not least of which because that also implies a network of rich people who will help you.

> If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff.

So money selecting which candidates you can vote on isn’t money buying elections, but policy arguments over how to spend the public purse is buying the public? That’s like having the position that a toddler has a choice when you ask them would they like broccoli or celery - you’ve predefined their choices for them and given them the illusion of choice.

> I don't know where you got that from.

“No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. It’s not the effective rhetorical device you think it is. It’s also horribly undermined precisely because politics has gotten so messed up Republicans are bold enough to literally trying this strategy now.

> I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation

Actually, no. This conversation started with your bold claim: “Can you show us how the wealthy are battling the poor?”. You’re now trying to shift the goal posts claiming it’s only about elections.
by bpt3 | 2025-12-08 19:26:09+00:00
I wouldn't consider something like "1-6 months" as a valid estimate, as that would indicate there is too much uncertainty and it needs to be broken down into subtasks that can be estimated with much less variance.

I've written what is probably several pages now in response to two individuals who are redefining terms in order to play the exact semantic games you mentioned, but in order to claim no estimation of any sort needs to be done. We seem to be done talking past each other now that I explicitly pointed out their usage of non-standard terms and my suspicions of why (having also unfortunately lived through software development managed by Gantt chart and other unpleasant experiences where someone who had no idea what they were managing was in control of a project), which is fine with me.

Feel free to describe your experience in practice when working in an organization where software developers answer to no one but themselves and are never asked for any justification for their progress or any projections of when they will be finished (both of which would require estimation to provide).

If you are able to tell stakeholders something like you'll be done in 1-6 months or provide no insight at all into when your tasking will be done, do no tracking of progress internally, and perform no collaboration around the completion of synchronous tasks within your team, I'll acknowledge no estimation is taking place during that process.
by bumby | 2025-12-08 19:26:19+00:00
>That is literally the system that exists today

Agreed. But the difference is I'm saying a better solution is to adjust the incentives rather than just keeping the same incentives but making it more transparent.

I would be in favor of higher pay for Congress given the limits of the job (maintaining at least two residences in DC and their home state, for example). Perhaps we just disagree on the level. I don't want it to be "lucrative" as you said originally (ie I don't want it to be a way to get rich), but it should be high enough to not be prohibitive to go into service. There are also some knock-on effects that would need to be managed; for example, I think overall civil servant pay is pegged to Congressional pay limits. Other solutions may be to have designated Congressional housing (so at least they can't use the housing cost as an excuse).
by preetamjinka | 2025-12-08 19:26:30+00:00
https://discovery.hgdata.com/product/foundationdb

This "Who is hiring" post for Tesla mentions FoundationDB [0].

Firebolt [1] uses it.

FoundationDB is used at Datadog [2].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26306170

[1] https://www.firebolt.io/blog/decomposing-firebolt-transactio...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36576775
by flkiwi | 2025-12-08 19:26:47+00:00
Me: Can you access my inbox and Teams messages?

Copilot: Yep!

Me: Please find any items in my inbox or sent items indicating (a) that I have agreed to take on a task or (b) identifying me as the person responsible for a task, removing duplicates and any items that I have unambiguously replied to via email or Teams. Time window is preceding 7 days.

Copilot: Prints a list with, at best, 5% accuracy

I know some folks have the peculiar idea that search is dead in favor of AI, but if AI can't accurately find information, it is useless. As near as I can tell, Copilot finds 3-4 items (but rarely the SAME 3-4 items across runs) and calls it a day. It just seems like nobody is actually testing any of this stuff. Microsoft is actively destroying its credibility because it's offering a tool with a party trick but is utterly unreliable. I will, therefore, not rely on it.
by perrygeo | 2025-12-08 19:26:59+00:00
Predicting the next token is not at all the same thing as predicting the next action in a causal chain of actions. Not even close. One is model of language tokens, the other is a model of the physical world. You can come up with all sorts of predictions that can't be expressed cleanly in natural language. And plenty of things that parse cleanly from a language perspective but are unhinged in their description of empirical reality.
by nfriedly | 2025-12-08 19:27:27+00:00
I had fun with crypto ~12 years ago. I mined a tiny bit, and I built a little crypto trading bot. The bot was mildly profitable, and I had bigger plans for it. Then the exchange I was using declared they had been hacked and shut down, taking all of my profits and seed money with it.

I feel like I learned all I needed to know about crypto from that experience and haven't touched it since then.
by fluidcruft | 2025-12-08 19:28:01+00:00
Yeah, same. I thought it was saying it reproduced only the background due to not being able to figure out an offset due to a sloppy initial screenshot or something. Then I was wondering why all the link images looked fuzzy and tried to inspect them and also wondered why the links didn't line up with the buttons either with dev tools open.

On the plus side, it does somewhat explain the weird patterns in his diff image which I had been puzzling over.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-12-08 19:28:20+00:00
"An AI is a bag that contains basically all words ever written, at least the ones that could be scraped off the internet or scanned out of a book."

The quantitative and qualitative difference between (a) "all words ever written" and (b) "ones that could be scraped off the internet or scanned out of book" easily exceeds the size of any LLM

Compared to (a), (b) is a tiny pouch, not even a bag

Opinions may differ on whether (b) is a representative sample of (a)

The words "scanned out of a book" would seem to be the most useful IMHO but the AI companies do not have enough words from those sources to produce useful general purpose LLMs

They have to add words "that could be scraped off the internet" which, let's be honest, is mostly garbage
by big-and-small | 2025-12-08 19:28:21+00:00
If you can afford Lambo you can come to place like Dubai and pay for it in AnyUSDcoin, gold nuggets or anime profile picture NFTs. Barrier for using crypto of any kind does not exist in countries without paranoid AML / KYC regulations.

Or tbh you can just buy it with crypto card issued in Hong Kong / Singapore even if you buying it in the US.
by marttt | 2025-12-08 19:28:54+00:00
Another distro worth noting here is EasyOS, a current project by Puppy Linux creator Barry Kauler: https://easyos.org/

I remember having tested it, but can't remember what it was like :) -- at least it didn't make me switch from Tiny Core Linux, which I've used extensively. From a superficial, distro-hopper view, DSL, Puppy, EasyOS and Tiny Core all feel quite similar, I guess.

As a side note, it is interesting to see DSL and TC on the HN front page in two consecutive days of 2025. Both are very old projects; I wonder what's the impulse behind this current interest.
by saubeidl | 2025-12-08 19:28:58+00:00
But isn't that counter to the very article we're commenting on? Everyone is shoving half baked AI junk into everything because that's what makes number go up on the stock market, but I'm pretty sure that's not actually what most people would want those resources to be used for.

I'd posit that markets are completely detached from the real world and are more of a speculative/religious element than an indicator of any ground truths.

Edit: I just realized I missed a sentence of yours where you kinda spoke to this. I still believe that this is more of a rule than an exception - there is nothing inherently tying markets and reality together - they're mostly about people making bets on what the next big hype is; not on what is actually useful to anyone.
by epolanski | 2025-12-08 19:29:31+00:00
2% is a massive difference.

Another user posted the difference between sp500 and Berkshire returns in the last 2 decades. Starting with 10k in one case you end up with 160, in the other at 240. And if the 2% delta stays there, it's going to compound even further.

Also, standard deviation on Berkshire is lower than the SP500, so the second is riskier.
by chung8123 | 2025-12-08 19:29:31+00:00
I am honestly struggling to figure out Microsoft's licensing system. We have it here and there are some on my team that want to try "CoPilot" (not even sure what that means now) but there is no licenses option for me to enable them to do that. I am sure they are targeting the larger places than my 50 person shop but it is so confusing I don't have the time in my day to figure out how to enable copilot for my team.
by ssl-3 | 2025-12-08 19:29:54+00:00
Your opinion is unpopular in this subset of folks here, but it's valid.

It isn't out-of-keeping in this kind of company for a person to start discussions about personal data privacy. In fact: We chat about this stuff here all the time.

But in reality: The number of discussions I've had about personal data privacy and monetization face-to-face with people that I did not meet through a computer network, or bring up myself is exactly 1.

It's thus my observation that most people in the world care about this issue approximately...never.

(The reason they don't care may be that they don't know enough to even begin to question whether the people behind their air fryer, genealogical DNA service, garage door opener, and food delivery system may have ulterior motives.

But guesses about root causation are, at best, both tangential and broadly inconsequential. We can guess and figure and re-figure and even prove theories until the cows come home.

And it doesn't matter.

They didn't care yesterday, they still don't care today while I write this, and they will continue to not care tomorrow.)
by slavik81 | 2025-12-08 19:29:55+00:00
It's worth noting that upstream gdb (and clang) are somewhat limited in GPU debugging support because they only use (and emit) standardized DWARF debug information. The DWARF standard will need updates before gdb and clang can reach parity with the AMD forks, rocgdb and amdclang, in terms of debugging support. It's nothing fundamental, but the AMD forks use experimental DWARF features and the upstream projects do not.

It's a little out of date now, but Lance Six had a presentation about the state of AMD GPU debugging in upstream gdb at FOSDEM 2024. https://archive.fosdem.org/2024/events/attachments/fosdem-20...
by dh2022 | 2025-12-08 19:30:09+00:00
Would you mind explaining what mistake did the Bitfinex hack perpetrators do? My understanding is that they were caught when they spent a bit of the money [0]. Because the transaction was on the public ledger FBI knew which wallet to track-which they did and the first few transactions gave the perpetrators away. But then again this is just my understanding. Thanks!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Bitfinex_hack#Laundering
by HaZeust | 2025-12-08 19:30:16+00:00
Same problems we have today. For the state, at an institutional scale, the incumbent can just have a government agency make up individuals born, or make up SSN numbers, or make up required parameters for one to have a valid voting ID in order to have a bunch of fake people issue fake ballots - because government agencies are currently responsible for instituting the legitimate ones, and its an unchecked procedure. And that's one of the less intuitive methods for bypassing current election systems.

There are ways to decentralize that as well; and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Decentralization is empowerment, it innately builds a freedom of choice, forcing of transparency, AND a flexibility for more direct and meaningful checks and balances on both an individual level, and a collective level.
by molticrystal | 2025-12-08 19:30:17+00:00
From the Quanta Books website [0] it seems it will be a while before anybody can read them, the article lists a couple dates but all the dates are on its website.

Everything Is Fields By David Tong (Early 2027)

Six Math Essentials By Terence Tao (November 2026)

The Proof in the Code By Kevin Hartnett (June 2026, Preorder Available)

[0] https://www.quantabooks.org/