MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by IshKebab | 2026-01-06 09:18:46+00:00
I looked into quantum inertial navigation a while ago because I wanted to understand - is it some weird quantum thing where they eliminate all accumulated error or not. As far as I could tell the answer is "not" - it's just a very very precise way of measuring acceleration.

Seems kind of hard to imagine that any accelerometer can be so precise you can use dead reckoning to the centimeter over a long time scale. Especially given how strong acceleration due to gravity is.
by SkiFire13 | 2026-01-06 09:19:01+00:00
> if I recall correctly Rust does not support any form of dynamic linking or library loading.

Rust supports two kinds of dynamic linking:

- `dylib` crate types create dynamic libraries that use the Rust ABI. They are only usesul within a single project though, since they are only guaranteed to work with the crate that depended on them at the compilation time.

- `cdylib` crate types with exported `extern "C"` functions; this creates a typical shared library in the C way, but you also need to implement the whole interface in a C-like unsafe subset of Rust.

Neither is ideal, but if you really want to write a shared library you can do it, it's just not a great experience. This is part of the reason why it's often preferred to use scripting languages or WASM (the other reason being that scripting languages and WASM are sandboxed and hence more secure by default).

I also want to note that a common misconception seems to be that Rust should allow any crate to be compiled to a shared library. This is not possible for a series of technical reasons, and whatever solution will be found will have to somehow distinguish "source only" crates from those that will be compilable as shared libraries, similarly to how C++ has header-only libraries.
by afiori | 2026-01-06 09:19:19+00:00
> but how do you know that is a number?

Quick answer: math[0]

Slightly longer answer decimal numbers between 0 and 1 can be written as the sum of a_010^0 + a_110^1 + a_210^2 + ... + a_i10^i + ... where a_i is one of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. for series in this shape you can prove that the sum of two series is the same iff and only if the sequence of digits are all the same (up to the slight complication of 0.09999999 = 0.1 and similar)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_(mathematics)
by labterminal | 2026-01-06 09:19:57+00:00
When agents call tools, debugging is weirdly blind: the client UI often hides the raw request/response, errors get swallowed, and you can’t correlate “why did it do that?” with the actual tool traffic.

Reticle is a local proxy + UI that shows the raw MCP JSON-RPC traffic (requests/responses), correlates calls, and makes it easy to spot slow/failing tools.

---

Try it:
Install:

# npm
npm install -g mcp-reticle

# pip
pip install mcp-reticle

# homebrew
brew install labterminal/tap/mcp-reticle
Run with a demo MCP server:

# Start the dashboard
mcp-reticle

# In another terminal, wrap any MCP server
mcp-reticle run --name demo -- npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/server-filesystem /tmp

---

What I'd love feedback on:
Which MCP clients should I support next? (Cline? Continue? OpenAI Agents SDK?)

Do you want "replay tool call" / "redaction rules" / "session export" first?

Anyone else frustrated by the lack of observability in this space, or am I yelling into the void?
by ben_w | 2026-01-06 09:20:41+00:00
I agree that actual tests are also necessary, that code review is not enough by itself. As LLMs can also write tests, I think getting as close as is sane to 100% code coverage is almost the first thing people should be doing with LLM assistance (and also, "as close as is sane": make sure that it really is a question of "I thought carefully and have good reason why there's no point testing this" rather than "I'm done writing test code, I'm sure it's fine to not test this", because LLMs are just that cheap).

However, code review can spot things like "this is O(n^2) when it could be O(n•log(n))", or "you're doing a server round trip for each item instead of parallelising them" etc.

You can also ask an LLM for a code review. They're fast and cheap, and whatever the LLM catches is something you get without having to waste a coworker's time. But LLMs have blind spots, and more importantly all LLMs (being trained on roughly the same stuff in roughly the same way) have roughly the same blind spots, whereas human blind spots are less correlated and expand coverage.

And code smells are still relevant for LLMs. You do want to make sure they're e.g. using a centralised UI style system and not copy-pasting style into each widget, because duplication wastes tokens and is harder to correctly update with LLMs for much the same reason it is with humans: stuff gets missed during the process when it's copypasta.
by SequoiaHope | 2026-01-06 09:20:44+00:00
I’ve come to appreciate that there is a new totally valid (imo) kind of software development one can do now where you simply do not read the code at all. I do this when prototyping things with vibe coding for example for personal use, and I’ve posted at least one such project on GitHub for others who may want to run the code.

Of course as a developer you still have to take responsibility for your code, minimally including a disclaimer, and not dumping this code in to someone else’s code base. For example at work when submitting MRs I do generally read the code and keep MRs concise.

I’ve found that there is a certain kind of coder that hears of someone not reading the code and this sounds like some kind of moral violation to them. It’s not. It’s some weird new kind of coding where I’m more creating a detailed description of the functionality I want and incrementally refining it and iterating on it by describing in text how I want it to change. For example I use it to write GUI programs for Ubuntu using GTK and python. I’m not familiar with python-gtk library syntax or GTK GUI methods so there’s not really much of a point in reading the code - I ask the machine to write that precisely because I’m unfamiliar with it. When I need to verify things I have to come up with ways for the machine to test the code on its own.

Point is I think it’s honestly one new legitimate way of using these tools, with a lot of caveats around how such generated code can be responsibly used. If someone vibe coded something and didn’t read it and I’m worried it contains something dangerous, I can ask Claude to analyze it and then run it in a docker container. I treat the code the same way the author does - as a slightly unknown pile of functions which seem to perform a function but may need further verification.

I’m not sure what this means for the software world. On the face of it it seems like it’s probably some kind of problem, but I think at the same time we will find durable use cases for this new mode of interacting with code. Much the same as when compilers abstracted away the assembly code.
by js8 | 2026-01-06 09:21:23+00:00
I think the issue is that everybody assumes the economy operates under some kind of "free market" conditions: limited by available labor but with unlimited potential demand. In that situation, AI could indeed cause massive unemployment.

But this is perhaps not the case. By pesimistic estimates half of the people work in bs jobs that have no real value to society, and every capitalist is focused on rent extraction now. If the economy can operate under such conditions, it doesn't really need more productivity growth, it is already demand-limited.
by darcien | 2026-01-06 09:22:08+00:00
Nice, I wonder how the banner would work for menu or any complex screen that's not a single sentence.

In the past, I've used MORT to play some Japanese MMO game. In-place overlay makes it easier to actually play the game instead of doing dictionary lookup on the side.

These days I stopped using realtime translator and just embrace the slow pace of learning these languages while enjoying the game story.

MORT: https://github.com/killkimno/MORT
by RadiozRadioz | 2026-01-06 09:22:20+00:00
As a user and developer, runtime is my least favourite place for dependency and library errors to occur. I can't even begin to count the hours, days, I've spent satisfying runtime dependencies of programs. Cannot load library X, fix it, then cannot load library Y, fix it, then library Z is the wrong version, then a glibc mismatch for good measure, repeat.

I'd give a gig of my memory to never have to deal with that again.
by jillesvangurp | 2026-01-06 09:23:44+00:00
We can hope but I'm not very optimistic about this not getting crushed again or there being any more than a vague thumbs up from abroad for the protesters. It seems they are on their own. But I could understand Iranians choosing to stay safe rather then risk their lives protesting given the way this has gone in the past.

On the other hand the sudden collapse of the Assad regime in Syria shows these things sometimes do happen. But I don't think similar conditions exist in Iran. There seems to be a lot of anger but very little organized opposition. But there are some reasons to assume the regime might fracture internally where religious extremists and conservative but more pragmatic opportunists running e.g. the military part ways.

An Egyptian model might be more lucrative for those types where you get a kleptocratic elite getting more diplomatic about restoring international relationships in exchange for sanctions lifting and access to international markets to get filthy rich from the natural resources that Iran is currently sitting on. My impression is that the current unrest is caused by economics, not ideology. But a lot would need to change in Iran for this to happen. The poor health of Khamenei might trigger such a thing in the context of a wider leadership battle.
by flumpcakes | 2026-01-06 09:23:54+00:00
> Apple makes luxury toy electronics. Hardly anyone is going to miss those in the world.

I agree with your point, the world needs to start looking at alternatives to American big tech, especially for sovereign needs. However, this is the one thing that I think will keep countries bowing down to the US and it's increasing international relations insanity: people want their shiny toys. We're OK on the gaming front, now Xbox is basically dead, and PlayStation/Nintendo are Japanese companies. There's already alternatives to Steam on the PC front.

I think the whole take-back-digital-sovereignty will be a much harder sell for the people who love their iPhones. Until we get some open operating system with cloned apple hardware. I don't see that happening anytime soon though because it will take tens or hundreds of billions in investment (not even R&D investment, but pure capital) to pull off. China looks like they might have done it for their native market. They've certainly done it for EVs.
by nicbou | 2026-01-06 09:24:09+00:00
I struggle more than ever to get Google to recognise my query and not a watered down interpretation of it. It was bad before and now it’s even worse. Yesterday I struggled to find the most popular salary tax calculator in our country.

From the other side there is also a massive drop in traffic reported by the entire industry. I am gearing up for a post-Google existence.
by bjackman | 2026-01-06 09:25:13+00:00
You can say you don't want prediction markets and that's fine. It's not responding to my comment though which is saying that if we have prediction markets, the goal should be for them to reveal facts about the world.

If you think prediction or stock markets should be "fair" then you have a very bizarre definition of fair (one that's compatible with a game that only rich people can win).

Also desiring "fairness" implies that to imply the market's primary purpose is as a game. If it's just a game, it's nothing but toxic gambling.

ANYWAY: pointing to one possible case of misuse and then leaping to "inherently problematic" is pretty weak IMO. Hopefully you can tell I'm not a prediction market booster, there's a lot about them that I think it's pretty suspect. But this is a pretty lame line of reasoning IMO.

"Someone might shoot people with it" -> valid reason for gun control. Guns are for shooting people.

"Someone might stab someone with it" -> not a valid reason to ban knives. We already ban stabbing people. We take precautions to try and mitigate the dangers of knives, because they have a very big upside.
by pseudohadamard | 2026-01-06 09:25:44+00:00
Some software does. If you've worked on SCADA gear it's expected to go into production and then run for 20-30 years without being patched once a month, or, actually, ever.

Someone once asked the author of an at the time widely-used security utility why it hadn't been updated since 1996, and whether it was abandonware. His response: "No, some people just get it right the first time". Just had a quick check and there's a single CVE for it from 25 years ago, possibly from a third-party mod rather than the original code.
by Numerlor | 2026-01-06 09:25:51+00:00
Nobody is duplicating the macbook experience because Apple is integrating both hardware and os, while others are fighting Windows, and OEMs being horrible at firmware.

LNL should only power throttle when you go to power saver modes, battery life will suffer when you let it boost high on all cores but you're not getting great battery life when doing heavy all core loads either way. Overall MT should be better on Panther lake with the unified architecture, as afaik LNLs main problem was being too expensive so higher end high core count SKUs were served by mobile arrow lake.
And we're also getting what seems to be a very good iGPU while AMD's iGPUs outside of Strix Halo are barely worth talking about

ST is about the same as AMD. Apple being ahead is nothing out of the ordinary since their ARM switch, as there's the node advantage, what I mentioned with the OS, and just better architecture as they plainly have the best people at the moment working at it
by lostlogin | 2026-01-06 09:26:30+00:00
> Apple is very consistent. You have the MacBook Air (lighter, more portable variant) and the MacBook Pro (more expensive and powerful variant).

What about the iBook? That wasn’t tidy. Ebooks or laptops?

Or the iPhone 9? That didn’t exist.

Or MacOS? Versioning got a bit weird after 10.9, due the X thing.

They do mess around with model numbers and have just done it again with the change to year numbers. I don’t particularly care but they aren’t all clean and pure.

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/28/gurman-version-...
by boudin | 2026-01-06 09:26:30+00:00
Security is a fallacy here because, being a US company, it is technically not secured by default as it has backdoors (or one has to assume it has backdoors and those cannot even be audited).
Then it is just about the sense of security which is based on the threat model you consider threatening to you.
You do not chose who you are the enemy of though and in fascist countries with no regards to the rule of law like the USA, this becomes a fairly important threat model to take into account.

Libreoffice is used quite a bit in administrations across EU.
I would expect more stickiness to microsoft caused by legacy applications that requires windows to run rather than office.
by JdeBP | 2026-01-06 09:28:43+00:00
The problems with what you say are that:

1. The history of /usr subdirectories is a lot more complex than that. There was a /usr/lbin once, for example.

1. /usr/local is not where third party softwares from packages/ports go on "the BSDs". On NetBSD, they go in /usr/pkg instead, again exemplifying that this is quite complex through history and across operating systems.
by lovich | 2026-01-06 09:30:13+00:00
Please stop spamming us with obvious AI generated posts.

What’s truly scarce are humans who stay humble, don’t lie, and actually communicate their thoughts instead of delegating all interactions to an automaton.

If you give as little a shit about us as to just dump machine generated text at us, why should we listen to you?

And that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt based on your post and account that you are trying to run some AI platform and aren’t just some consensus manufacturing bot.

Edit: nope, benefit of the doubt is gone. A ~3 month old account. The second comment you had which was the first with any interaction[1] is from another ~3 month old account that is even more obviously a bot.

I guess we just have Reddit style
Bot nets on this forum forever

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534990
by delis-thumbs-7e | 2026-01-06 09:31:12+00:00
I predict all house cats will be replaced by robots by 2027. People just do not realise how great of an effect the AI and robotics will have on home pet ownership. However as a CEO of a publicly listed company ”Robot-cats-that-are-totally-like-awesome-and-are-gonna-like-totally-be-as-lovable-as-real-ones Inc.” I am seeing this change from first row seat. We plan to be on the helm of the new pet-robot future, which not furry and cute, but cold and boring.

Sources? What, but, you are not a journalist, you are not suppose to challenge what I say, I’m a CEO! No I’m not just using media to create artificial hype to pull investors and make money on bullshit that is never gonna work! How can you say that! It’s a real thing, trust me bro!
by labterminal | 2026-01-06 09:31:18+00:00
mitmproxy/Charles are great when the traffic is HTTP and on the network path. A lot of MCP usage isn’t: it’s a local process talking JSON-RPC over stdin/stdout.
In that setup:

Generic proxies don’t see it (no HTTP, no socket to intercept)

Server-side logging only shows half the story (you don’t see what the client actually sent, retries/cancels, malformed params, timing from the client POV)

Reticle’s main value is MCP-aware debugging on that stdio channel:

req/resp correlation (JSON-RPC ids), latency per call, and error surfacing

client + server + stderr in one place (so crashes/debug prints don’t get lost)

session capture/export so you can reproduce/share a trace instead of “turn on logs and try again”

basic MCP semantics/filtering (method, errors, slow calls, payload size) instead of a raw byte stream

So yes: correlation + session capture + tool-call semantics, but specifically for the common “local MCP tool over stdio” case where generic network proxies and server logs fall short.
by azeirah | 2026-01-06 09:31:33+00:00
I would love to have a nix flake to install it easily with nix! Given it's built in bash that should be basically no issue whatsoever.

Thanks a lot for this! I was interested in beads but found the author's approach to software development quite erratic and honestly a bit unprofessional. Yes, LLMs are great, but no they shouldn't be the lead developer.

Beads is an incredibly difficult-to-follow mess for something that is at its core a pretty simple idea. You distilled it to its core, I will absolutely be checking this out :)
by nine_k | 2026-01-06 09:32:50+00:00
Open-source software was created by people who wanted to address their own needs, and we're lucky that we share the same needs. Commercial software companies and media companies were and are unhappy about that, because they lost control and profits.

Regulated, constrained versions of Internet are being built by governments and some large corporations, to meet their needs. While EU's constraints may look benign (even though they are not), the versions built in PRC, Russia, India, Türkyie are in various degrees openly anti-citizen. As long as citizens' needs (like privacy and unrestricted access) do not align with the ideas of the governments and corporations, we, citizens, are usually the losing side.

The fix is obvious: regulations should be liberty-preserving, and for that, governments that are better aligned with our, citizens', interests should be voted in.

And here we encounter a hard problem.
by elsjaako | 2026-01-06 09:32:52+00:00
I didn't mean to say all hiphop is like what I mention. I'm 100% sure that hiphop also does sampling in really interesting ways, I'm just not as familiar with the examples. This was not not meant as a diss, and I wasn't saying all hiphop does things the same way. I was just mentioning examples that I'm personally familiar with of "Sampling Slop", "Different kind of creativity", and "Using Sampling as a completely new instrument".

For the middle category, I meant things like Gangsta's Paradise. I really like the song, I think Coolio really adds something. But you can hear much more of "Pasttime Paradise" in there than you can hear "More Spell On You" in Daft Punk's "One More time"

I mention Daft Punk because it's really accessible: there are videos on youtube that can show a layperson like me exactly how they chopped up the samples.
by flumpcakes | 2026-01-06 09:33:15+00:00
> entirely dependent on US

It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it.

It may seem one sided, but the EU has a lot more to gain if there was a hard split between them and the US. It will be significantly more painful for the EU, for a long time, but ultimately it would be the undoing of the US as hegemon. Unfortunately Russia would take advantage and begin an invasion into the EU, so an EU/US split is unfavourable.

Ultimately it is the security of NATO that the EU really needs the US for. And that is what it pays for in the dependency it has on the US.
by 53p3h2 | 2026-01-06 09:33:38+00:00
nobody see US as threat besides delusional US citizens and terrorists. when a nation becomes desperate, they see US and Europe their only saviors. if you think otherwise go ask the immigrants in your country assuming you live in US or Europe. at least US cares about its own people while doing whatever in other countries and believe me its way better than a government killing their own people because they are on the verge of hunger and poverty.
by cubefox | 2026-01-06 09:34:03+00:00
This won't be popular [1], but research breakthroughs in theoretical mathematics seem to be often useless in a way that useless science is not. Scientific breakthroughs are also often useless (nothing practical is gained from the first detection of a gravitational wave, or from finding out how flight first evolved in insects) but scientific insights still have more information content: they tell us facts specifically about our world, while mathematical proofs merely tell us about all possible worlds. About some consequence of made-up assumptions we happen to find interesting.

It's a bit like finding the fastest way possible to beat Super Mario Bros 3 while collecting the minimum number of coins. A solution to a neat puzzle, but it doesn't carry the epistemic weight of finding out how the universe works, even if both pieces of knowledge are equally useless.

1: And of course this point doesn't apply to applied math.
by Traster | 2026-01-06 09:34:10+00:00
It's kind of annoying that they don't go into specifics about why this is good. The problem with traditional accelerometers is that the error accumulates, and so even small errors accumulate. The article doesn't really address what makes this different - and in fact I don't think it is different. You're still just measuring acceleration using a sensor and that sensor will have errors that accumulate. So the question is how much better is it?

I would wager that actually this is probably just a way of funnelling money into research around quantum rather than genuinely trying to solve this specific problem. This specific problem sounds like it could be solved for a lot less money using conventional accelerometers in combination with some other local location data (optical sensors for example, you're in a very controlled environment).
by speedgoose | 2026-01-06 09:34:57+00:00
I'm running an experimental side project where I doing some kind of glue between various time-series APIs and storage engines.

For example it has an InfluxDB compatible ingestion API, so Telegraf can push its data to it or InfluxDB can replicate to it. It also has a Prometheus remote read and remote write API, so it's compatible with Prometheus.

The storage can be done in various systems, including ClickHouse, SQLite, DuckDB, TimescaleDB… I should try to include QuestDB.