MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nu11ptr | 2025-12-04 23:36:21+00:00
> I would assume trivial means the default approach works for most cases. Perhaps mutable global variables are not a common use case. Unsafe might make it easier, but it’s not obvious and probably undesired.

I'm a Rust fan, and I would generally agree with this. It isn't difficult, but trivial isn't quite right either. And no, global vars aren't terribly common in Rust, and when used, are typically done via LazyLock to prevent data races on intialization.

> I don’t know Rust, but I’ve heard pockets of unsafe code in a code base can make it hard to trust in Rust’s guarantees. The compromise feels like the language didn’t actually solve anything.

Not true at all. First, if you aren't writing device drivers/kernels or something very low level there is a high probability your program will have zero unsafe usages in it. Even if you do, you now have an effective comment that tells you where to look if you ever get suspicious behavior. The typical Rust paradigm is to let low level crates (libraries) do the unsafe stuff for you, test it thoroughly (Miri, fuzzing, etc.), and then the community builds on these crates with their safe programs. In contrast, C/C++ programs have every statement in an "unsafe block". In Rust, you know where UB can or cannot happen.
by JackMorgan | 2025-12-04 23:36:33+00:00
The results seem pretty clear that CBT can be quite effective in helping with ADHD.

Unlike insulin, which cannot be produced with any sort of therapy, it does seem that ADHD can be significantly improved.

I'm sorry though that the facts seem to bother you so much.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22480189/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28413900/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32036811/
by verdverm | 2025-12-04 23:36:47+00:00
We were taught not to use exceptions for control flow, and reading a file which does not exist is a pretty normal thing to handle in code flow, rather than exceptions.

That simple example in Python is missing all the other stuff you have to put around it. Go would have another error check, but I get to decide, at that point in the execution, how I want to handle it in this context
by vl | 2025-12-04 23:36:54+00:00
TRT is one of those things which requires precise and active management. But it also increases quality of life and well-being so much for 45yo and beyond that it’s insane not to use it. (And same thing with HRT for women).

Your choice is to die chronically ill, weak and depressed for decades, or feeling great and enjoying your later years.
by 1a527dd5 | 2025-12-04 23:38:11+00:00
Time.

That has been the best way to get returns.

I setup a 212 account when I was looking to buy our first house. I bought in small tiny chunks of industry where I was comfortable and knowledgeable in. Over the years I worked up a nice portfolio.

Anyway, long story short. I forgot about the account, we moved in, got a dog, had children.

And then I logged in for the first time in ages, and to my shock. My returns were at 110%. I've done nothing. It's bizarre and perplexing.
by mh2266 | 2025-12-04 23:38:14+00:00
I feel like it is the opposite, Go gives you a ton of rope to hang yourself with and hopefully you will notice that you did: error handing is essentially optional, there are no sum types and no exhaustiveness checks, the stdlib does things like assume filepaths are valid strings, if you forget to assign something it just becomes zero regardless of whether it’s semantically reasonable for your program to do that, no nullability checking enforcement for pointers, etc.

Rust OTOH is obsessively precise about enforcing these sort of things.

Of course Rust has a lot of features and compiles slower.
Show HN: RIMC – An Alpha-Drift Framework for Finite-Speed Learning Markets
by sode_rimc | 2025-12-04 23:38:17+00:00
I published a small theoretical project on GitHub and would appreciate feedback from anyone working with real quant models.

RIMC (Recursive Intelligence Market Cycle Hypothesis) is not a trading system or a full asset-pricing model. It’s a hypothesis for treating alpha as structural drift that arises from finite-speed learning and observation delay—rather than as a leftover regression residual. The goal is to write that structure explicitly in equations.

The repo is mostly text with a small sample simulation. Think of it as a dynamical-systems-meets-finance thought experiment.

I’d be interested in reactions such as:

• Does this framing of persistent alpha make sense in practical quant terms? • Are there existing models/papers that do something similar? • How does this compare with your experience handling delay or learning effects?

Any feedback—critical or supportive—is welcome.

GitHub: https://github.com/rimc-lab/RIMC
by astrange | 2025-12-04 23:38:28+00:00
> But applying logic or being able to observe the physical world doesn't emerge from language. Language seems like an artifact of doing these things and a tool to do them in collaboration, but it only carries logic and knowledge because humans left these traces in "correct language".

That's not the only element that went into producing the models. There's also the anthropic principle - they test them with benchmarks (that involve knowledge and truthful statements) and then don't release the ones that fail the benchmarks.
by gtowey | 2025-12-04 23:38:33+00:00
Which brings up what IMHO should be the main takeaway from this:

The first requirement to fall into this trap is to believe you can't fall into this trap. It's still possible to do malicious things even when you believe to your very core that you're not a malicious person.

The only way to avoid it is a healthy habit of critical self-reflection. Be the first to question your own motives and actions.
by PHGamer | 2025-12-04 23:38:38+00:00
you should upgrade to a used or new 12900k with DDR4 since its still cheaper than dd5 even if it is up. then get a used 3080ti with 12gb. youll be able to do proper h.265 decode/encode with that for up to 4k (unfortuantly not 8k but hey no one really has that yet)
by turtletontine | 2025-12-04 23:39:32+00:00
Yup. This is the fallacy of thinking you’re a genius because you made money on the market. Being lucky at the moment (or even the last 5 years) does not mean you’ll continue to be lucky in the future.

“Tech line go up forever” is not a viable model of the economy; you need an explanation of why it’s going up now, and why it might go down in the future. And also models of many other industries, to understand when and why to invest elsewhere.

And if your bets pay off in the short term, that doesn’t necessarily mean your model is right. You could have chosen the right stocks for the wrong reasons! Past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance.
by johnzachariah69 | 2025-12-04 23:40:30+00:00
AI Full-Stack Engineer with 8+ years of experience building and deploying Generative AI systems, multimodal AI Agents, and scalable web platforms. I combine deep expertise in LLMs (GPT/LLMs, RAG, vector search, multimodal models) with strong full-stack engineering skills across React, Next.js, Node.js, Python, and AWS to deliver end-to-end, production-ready AI products. I’ve built HIPAA-compliant clinical tools, workflow automation engines, fintech intelligence systems, and AI-driven SaaS platforms used by thousands. My work centers on designing secure, scalable, and human-centered AI systems that deliver real business impact - not just prototypes. Passionate about building innovative AI ecosystems that streamline workflows, elevate decision-making, and accelerate enterprise automation
by ethbr1 | 2025-12-04 23:41:17+00:00
I don't buy the 'people need to be protected from things' argument.

I lived both eras.

Independent servers and self-modding were hands-down superior in terms of creativity and fun.

The current locked-box 'as the developers intended' version sucks in comparison.

And as referenced, its primary purpose is absolutely to enforce scarcity so that can be monetized.

Goatse in exchange for true ownership? Any day of the fucking week. My eyelids work, and I can close them myself.
by Aloisius | 2025-12-04 23:41:36+00:00
This cites an NCES study which doesn't appears to be locked down to approved researchers, but it provides a national number:

> In 2019-20, 8% of students registered as having a disability with their institution. This rate was 10% at non-proﬁt institutions, 7% at for-proﬁt institutions, and 7% of students at public institutions.

https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/StudentswithDisa...
by observationist | 2025-12-04 23:41:53+00:00
Grok would likely have an advantage there, as well - it's got better coupling to X/Twitter, a better web search index, fewer safety guardrails in pretraining and system prompt modification that distort reality. It's easy to envision random market realities that would trigger ChatGPT or Claude into adjusting the output to be more politically correct. DeepSeek would be subject to the most pretraining distortion, but have the least distortion in practice if a random neutral host were selected.

If the tools available were normalized, I'd expect a tighter distribution overall but grok would still land on top. Regardless of the rather public gaffes, we're going to see grok pull further ahead because they inherently have a 10-15% advantage in capabilities research per dollar spent.

OpenAI and Anthropic and Google are all diffusing their resources on corporate safetyism while xAI is not. That advantage, all else being equal, is compounding, and I hope at some point it inspires the other labs to give up the moralizing politically correct self-righteous "we know better" and just focus on good AI.

I would love to see a frontier lab swarm approach, though. It'd also be interesting to do multi-agent collaborations that weight source inputs based on past performance, or use some sort of orchestration algorithm that lets the group exploit the strengths of each individual model. Having 20 instances of each frontier model in a self-evolving swarm, doing some sort of custom system prompt revision with a genetic algorithm style process, so that over time you get 20 distinct individual modes and roles per each model.

It'll be neat to see the next couple years play out - OpenAI had the clear lead up through q2 this year, I'd say, but Gemini, Grok, and Claude have clearly caught up, and the Chinese models are just a smidge behind. We live in wonderfully interesting times.
by irishcoffee | 2025-12-04 23:41:54+00:00
> Even if you do, you now have an effective comment that tells you where to look if you ever get suspicious behavior.

By the time suspicious behavior happens, isn’t it kind of a critical inflection point?

For example, the news about react and next that came out. Once the code is deployed, re-deploying (especially with a systems language that quite possibly lives on an air-gapped system with a lot of rigor about updates) means you might as well have used C, the dollar cost is the same.
by brailsafe | 2025-12-04 23:42:00+00:00
It varies, working from home can be a horrible isolating trap and simultaneously much more productive and appealing.

Especially in the winter months, if your work day is now at your home with no intrinsic reason to go anywhere else, you wake up in darkness and first leave the house in darkness, meanwhile the agency you'd otherwise have is impeded by people watching your Slack status wondering where you are, it's not exactly ideal. With no physical difference between work and home, you and up basically always being at home, which can be dreadful at times.
by jaredklewis | 2025-12-04 23:42:34+00:00
I'm fine if a teacher or organization decides that thinking speed is an important criteria to evaluate, in which case I think the same time limits should apply to everyone.

I'm also fine if a teacher or organization decides they just want to evaluate competency at the underlying material, in which case I think a very generous time limit should be given. Here the time limit is not meant to constrain the test taker, but is just an logistical artifact that eventually teachers and students need to go home. The test should be designed so that any competent taker can complete well in advance of the time limit.

I only object to conditionally caring about the thinking speed of students.
by dlisboa | 2025-12-04 23:42:43+00:00
> Go programmer attitude is "do what I said, and trust that I read the library docs before I said it".

I agree and think Go gets unjustly blamed for some things: most of the foot guns people say Go has are clearly laid out in the spec/documentation. Are these surprising behaviors or did you just not read?

Getting a compiler and just typing away is not a great way of going about learning things if that compiler is not as strict.
by mh2266 | 2025-12-04 23:43:30+00:00
The only thing I really found weird syntactically when learning it was the single quote for lifetimes because it looks like it’s an unmatched character literal. Other than that it’s a pretty normal curly-braces language, & comes from C++, generic constraints look like plenty of other languages.

Of course the borrow checker and when you use lifetimes can be complex to learn, especially if you’re coming from GC-land, just the language syntax isn’t really that weird.
by cheeseblubber | 2025-12-04 23:43:30+00:00
We used the LLMs API and provided custom tools like a stock ticker tool that only gave stock price information for that date of backtest for the model. We did this for news apis, technical indicator apis etc. It took quite a long time to make sure that there weren't any data leakage. The whole process took us about a month or two to build out.
by stouset | 2025-12-04 23:44:12+00:00
The default approach is to use a container that enforces synchronization. If you need manual control, you are able to do that, you just need to explicitly opt into the responsibility that comes with it.

If you use unsafe to opt out of guarantees that the compiler provides against data races, it’s no different than doing the exact same thing in a language that doesn’t protect against data races.
by bsder | 2025-12-04 23:44:27+00:00
> So RAII isn't the big evil monster, and we need to stop talking about RAII, globals, etc, in these ways.

I disagree and place RAII as the dividing line on programming language complexity and is THE "Big Evil Monster(tm)".

Once your compiled language gains RAII, a cascading and interlocking set of language features now need to accrete around it to make it ... not excruciatingly painful. This practically defines the difference between a "large" language (Rust or C++) and a "small" language (C, Zig, C3, etc.).

For me, the next programming language innovation is getting the garbage collected/managed memory languages to finally quit ceding so much of the performance programming language space to the compiled languages. A managed runtime doesn't have to be so stupidly slow. It doesn't have to be so stupidly non-deterministic. It doesn't have to have a pathetic FFI that is super complex. I see the "strong typing everywhere" as the first step along this path. Fil-C might become an interesting existence proof in this space.

I view having to pull out any of C, Zig, C++, Rust, etc. as a higher-level programming language failure. There will always be a need for something like them at the bottom, but I really want their scope to be super small. I don't want to operate at their level if I can avoid them. And I say all this as someone who has slung more than 100KLoC of Zig code lately.

For a concrete example, let's look at Ghostty which was written in Zig. There is no strong performance reason to be in Zig (except that implementations in every other programming language other than Rust seem to be so much slower). There is no strong memory reason to be in Zig (except that implementations in every other programming language other than Rust chewed up vast amounts of it). And, yet, a relatively new, unstable, low-level programming language was chosen to greenfield Ghostty. And all the other useful terminal emulators seem to be using Rust.

Every adherent of managed memory languages should take it as a personal insult that people are choosing to write modern terminal emulators in Rust and Zig.
by codr7 | 2025-12-04 23:44:30+00:00
I've done several custom frameworks for solo projects in Java & Go, all based on server generated content, inspired by Seaside but more RESTy.

Also used Flask and similar libraries for back ends.

Did one project in Rails, which was a pretty bad experience in comparison, and killed any motivation to look into Django.

Also did plenty of Spring in Java professionally, unfortunately.
by jbullock35 | 2025-12-04 23:44:59+00:00
When I was a student in the United States in the 1990s, I took many tests in which handwriting speed limited me. It was purely a physical problem. When I was permitted to type, there was no issue. To be clear, I'm speaking of tests in the humanities and social sciences, for which students must write short essays.

Later, when I was a professor in the United States, I saw some of my students grappling with the same problem.

I don't think that my students and I are extraordinary. Other people were, and are, limited by slow handwriting when they are required to handwrite their exams. You could try to identify these people and give them extra time. But the better move would be to stop requiring students to handwrite essays under a time constraint.
by taurath | 2025-12-04 23:45:09+00:00
Not only are you discouraged from criticizing half baked manager-metric led implementations, you’re deeply incentivized to openly praise it if you want to be considered for the next well-funded initiative.

People with fiefdoms don’t like criticism. Microsoft pays their vassal dependent companies to use their products, no users actually like or would choose the products (Teams? 365 copilot? Azure?), and the whole enclosed ecosystem is pretty awful.
by mx7zysuj4xew | 2025-12-04 23:45:16+00:00
Hard disagree

Biden was slow, made small gaffes, but overall his words and actions were careful and deliberate

Aside from trump falling asleep during cabinet meetings on camera, having him freeze up during a medical emergency and his erratic social media posts at later hours of the day (sundowning behavior)

Trump literally seems to be decomposing in front of our eyes, I've never felt more physically repulsed by an individual before

Trumps behavior is utterly deranged. His lack of inhibition, decency and compassion is disturbing

Had he been a non celebrity private citizen he'd most likely be declared mentally incompetent and placed under guardianship in a closed care facility.
by astrange | 2025-12-04 23:45:38+00:00
> This country doesn’t build anything anymore and we are concentrating all the wealth and power into the hands of a few. This leaves the top 1% getting richer every year and the bottom 99% fighting over a smaller piece of the pie every year.

Wouldn't say this is an accurate description of the US economy.

https://realtimeinequality.org/?id=wealth&wealthend=03012023...
by WalterBright | 2025-12-04 23:45:44+00:00
Caltech had timed exams (2-3 hours) and infinite time exams, at the discretion of the professor.

The students hated the infinite time ones, because nobody knew how much time other students spent on the test so one felt obliged to spend inordinate amounts of time on it.

Besides, if you couldn't solve the exam problems in 2 hours, you simply didn't know the material.
by stouset | 2025-12-04 23:46:07+00:00
Are you with a straight face saying that occasionally having a safety bug in limited unsafe areas of Rust is functionally the same as having written the entire program in an unsafe language like C?

One, the dollar cost is not the same. The baseline floor of quality will be higher for a Rust program vs. a C program given equal development effort.

Second, the total possible footprint of entire classes of bugs is zero thanks to design features of Rust (the borrowck, sum types, data race prevention), except in a specifically delineated areas which often total zero in the vast majority of Rust programs.
by throwawaylaptop | 2025-12-04 23:46:39+00:00
I was on some kind of local BBS in 1995 from my local ISP. I found a guy selling a gamepad of some kind. Agreed to buy it. Talked to him for a decent amount of time. Finally set time to meet at local Kmart near my house.

The look on his face when a 10 year old rode up on a bicycle to buy his gamepad. I don't have a good memory but I still remember that scene ha.
by dfawcus | 2025-12-04 23:46:48+00:00
depending upon how one has structured the code, a less painful way to write the same is:

typedef char array[5]; void do_something(array *a) { enum { a_Size = sizeof *a }; memset(*a, 'x', a_Size); }

it rather depends upon how painful it will be to create a bunch of typedefs.

Beyond a certain point, if there are too many arrays of the same size with different purposes, my inclination is to wrap the array in a struct, and pass that around (either by pointer or value depending upon circumstances.)

The existence of the decaying form is if I recall correctly a backward compatibility thing from either B or NB; simply because in one or the other pointers were written in the (current) array syntax form.
by auxiliarymoose | 2025-12-04 23:47:23+00:00
Agreed. Rob Pike presented a good talk "Concurrency is not Parallelism" which explains the motivations behind Go's concurrency model: https://youtu.be/oV9rvDllKEg

Between the lack of "colored functions" and the simplicity of communicating with channels, I keep surprising myself with how (relatively) quick and easy it is to develop concurrent systems with correct behavior in Go.
by Nevermark | 2025-12-04 23:47:25+00:00
Just one run per model? That isn't backtesting. I mean technically it is, but "testing" implies producing meaningful measures.

Also just one time interval? Something as trivial as "buy AI" could do well in one interval, and given models are going to be pumped about AI, ...

100 independent runs on each model over 10 very different market behavior time intervals would producing meaningful results. Like actually credible, meaningful means and standard deviations.

This experiment, as is, is a very expensive unbalanced uncharacterizable random number generator.
by TheAlchemist | 2025-12-04 23:47:42+00:00
FPGAs are widely used in low latency trading. Most market data feed handlers and order passing adapters are done in FPGAs today - they offer better latency than software solutions and processing time is deterministic.

One example of a company offering something like that: https://www.enyx.com/

It highly depends on what you're doing, but in trading there is very often a direct reliationship between latency and how much money you can make.
by naet | 2025-12-04 23:47:53+00:00
I used to work for a brokerage API geared at algorithmic traders and in my experience anecdotal experience many strategies seem to work well when back-tested on paper but for various reasons can end up flopping when actually executed in the real market. Even testing a strategy in real time paper trading can end up differently than testing on the actual market where other parties are also viewing your trades and making their own responses. The post did list some potential disadvantages of backtesting, so they clearly aren't totally in the dark on it.

Deepseek did not sell anything, but did well with holding a lot of tech stocks. I think that can be a bit of a risky strategy with everything in one sector, but it has been a successful one recently so not surprising that it performed well. Seems like they only get to "trade" once per day, near the market close, so it's not really a real time ingesting of data and making decisions based on that.

What would really be interesting is if one of the LLMs switched their strategy to another sector at an appropriate time. Very hard to do but very impressive if done correctly. I didn't see that anywhere but I also didn't look deeply at every single trade.